If a lower court buys an argument that’s clearly wrong, is the argument nonetheless ‘objectively reasonable?’ And does Taggart apply to an automatic stay violation?

First Amendment doesn’t compel deduction of religious contributions in finding an ‘undue hardship’ justifying the discharge of student loans.

‘No objectively reasonable basis’ is the high court standard to find civil contempt for violating the discharge injunction.

BAP joins the majority of courts by saying that defaulting on direct mortgage payments precludes a chapter 13 debtor from receiving a discharge.

Egregious behavior doesn’t always result in nondischargeability for willful and malicious injury.

Finding ‘undue hardship’ held not to require discharging all student loan debt.

The Ninth Circuit BAP follows Kelley, even though the panel implies that the Supreme Court tortured the language in Section 523(a)(7).

In Taggart v. Lorenzen, the justices sounded largely noncommittal, except for the Chief Justice, who seemed in the debtor’s camp favoring a stricter standard for contempt of the discharge injunction.

Conversely, giving notice to a creditor’s state-court counsel may not be adequate, New Jersey judge says.

Supreme Court will not rule on whether upholding the integrity of the judicial system by itself confers appellate standing.