Krishnamurthy v. Nimmagadda (In Re Krishnamurthy)
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED OPINION
MEYERS, Bankruptcy Judge:
I
OVERVIEW
The appellants’ disorganized and nonsensical arguments notwithstanding, this case is quite simple. A state court jury assessed punitive damages against the appellants under Section 3294 of the California Civil Code which requires a finding of “oppression, fraud or malice.” A finding of oppression or malice satisfies Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(6). A finding of fraud coupled with the undisputed fact that appellants and appellees were partners, and hence fiduciaries, satisfies § 523(a)(4). Either way the state court judgment established that…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Allen v. McCurrySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Bankr. L. Rep. P 70,935 Vance L. Ragsdale v. John Frederick Haller AKA Fred HallerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1984
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Spinoso v. Heilman (In Re Heilman)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland · 1999
- Lopez v. Emergency Service Restoration, Inc. (In Re Lopez)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Sandak v. Dobrayel (In Re Dobrayel)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2002
- Baldwin v. Kilpatrick (In Re Baldwin)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Branam v. Crowder (In Re Branam)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.