Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
In Re Thomas M. Kelly, Debtor.chris Okoye, Appellant, v. Thomas M. Kelly, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 100 F.3d 110
Argued and Submitted Sept. 19, 1996.Decided Nov. 25, 1996
William A. Kent, Irvine, CA, for appellant.
Howard S. Nevins and Thomas Griffin, Jr., Hefner, Stark & Marois, LLP, Sacramento, CA, for appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Volinn, Ollason, and Russell, Judges Presiding. BAP No. EC-94-02064-RoV.
Before: BEEZER and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and GILLMOR, District Judge.*
ORDER
On August 30, 1994, the bankruptcy court entered an order that a state court judgment debt owed by the debtor/appellee Thomas M. Kelly to the appellant Chris Okoye was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit (the BAP), in a published opinion, reversed. Kelly v. Okoye (In re Kelly), 182 B.R. 255 (9th Cir. BAP 1995).
The issue in this appeal is whether collateral estoppel applies to preclude Kelly from asserting, in Okoye's adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court, that the state court judgment debt did not result from any willful or malicious injury to Okoye.
We hold that collateral estoppel is inapplicable, and affirm the BAP's reversal of the bankruptcy court's judgment for the reasons given by the BAP in its published opinion.
The BAP is AFFIRMED. The judgment of the bankruptcy court is REVERSED. This case is remanded to the BAP for remand to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings consistent with the BAP's published opinion.