Okoye v. Kelly
9th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026In re: Marc Howell 9th Cir. BAP
- 2025Albert-Sheridan Bankr. C.D. Cal.
- 2025In re: Guy S. Griffithe 9th Cir. BAP
- 2024In re: Thomas John Shayman 9th Cir. BAP
- 2024Tahmisian v. Netacent, Inc. Bankr. D. Idaho
- 2023In re: Soon Hee Kim 9th Cir. BAP
- 2022Cowan v. Wafford Bankr. C.D. Cal.
- 2022In re: HAROLD W. DICKENS, III, Dba LAW OFFICES OF HAROLD W. DICKENS, III, Dba LAW OFFICES OF HAROLD W. DICKENS, III, P.C. 9th Cir. BAP
- 2022In re: Michael Paul Newman 9th Cir. BAP
- 2021Federal Trade Commission v. Lake Bankr. C.D. Cal.
Cites 1 statute
- Exceptions to discharge
Cites 1 case
- Kelly v. Okoye (In re Kelly)
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
In re Thomas M. KELLY, Debtor. Chris OKOYE, Appellant, v. Thomas M. KELLY, Appellee.
Judges
- Before: BEEZER and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and GILLMOR, District Judge.
Attorneys
- William A. Kent, Irvine, CA, for appellant.
- Howard S. Nevins and Thomas Griffin, Jr., Hefner, Stark & Marois, LLP, Sacramento, CA, for appellee.
ORDER
On August 80, 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 non-disehargeable 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.