Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

995 F.2d 76

Docket No. 92-8710 Summary Calendar.

Ferris v. Stokes

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

July 14, 1993.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1993-07-14

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“This holding is consistent with existing case law for, while we are aware of no case that holds that conduct under one of the provisions cannot also constitute conduct under the other, a number of courts have suggested that the same conduct can violate both provisions. See, e.g., Britton v. Price (In re Britton), 950 F.2d 602, 603-05 (9th Cir.1991); Rubin v. West (In re Rubin), 875 F.2d 755 , 758 n. 1 (9th Cir.1989); Giangrasso v. Butler (In re Giangrasso), 145 B.R. 319, 321-24 (9th Cir. BAP 1992); Seay v. Greene (In re Greene), 150 B.R. 282, 285-87 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1993); Goins v. Day (In re Day), 137 B.R. 335, 341-42 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1992).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including McCrary v. Barrack (In Re Barrack)

Relies on Britton v. Price · Rubin v. West · Goins v. Day (In Re Day)

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1993-07-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently January 2015

3 federal appellate ·

130199320002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

William C. Davidson, Jr., Minter, Joseph & Thornhill, P.C., Austin, TX, for appellant.

Robert R. Bradshaw, Babb & Bradshaw, Austin, TX, for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

In this bankruptcy case involving the dischargeability of a claim pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523, the primary question is whether a finding of actual fraud and of the applicability of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) necessarily precludes a finding that the same conduct also amounts to "willful and malicious conduct" under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). In a comprehensive opinion, Stokes v. Ferris, 150 B.R. 388 (W.D.Tex.1992), the district court, in an appeal from the bankruptcy court, answered the question in the affirmative, holding that the same conduct can give rise to a cause of action under both section 523(a)(2)(A) and section 523(a)(6). See id. at 392.

¶2

We affirm, essentially for the reasons stated, and the analysis made, by the district court. This holding is consistent with existing caselaw for, while we are aware of no case that holds that conduct under one of the provisions cannot also constitute conduct under the other, a number of courts have suggested that the same conduct can violate both provisions. See, e.g., Britton v. Price (In re Britton), 950 F.2d 602, 603-05 (9th Cir.1991); Rubin v. West (In re Rubin), 875 F.2d 755, 758 n. 1 (9th Cir.1989); Giangrasso v. Butler (In re Giangrasso), 145 B.R. 319, 321-24 (Bankr.9th Cir.1992); Seay v. Greene (In re Greene), 150 B.R. 282, 285-87 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1993); Goins v. Day (In re Day), 137 B.R. 335, 341-42 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1992).

¶3

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

/995/f2d/76 · .json · Public domain