Davis v. White (In Re White) Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A debtor shot at one person but accidentally hit the plaintiff. The court held the resulting judgment debt was non-dischargeable in bankruptcy because the debtor’s intent to harm the first person transferred to the actual victim, making the injury “willful and malicious” under the Bankruptcy Code.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that the tort doctrine of transferred intent applies to the “willful and malicious injury” exception to discharge under § 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. An intentional act injuring an unintended victim still creates a non-dischargeable debt.
Davis v. White (In Re White) Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The debtor, Walter White, had an ongoing dispute with a third party, William Tipton. In anticipation of a confrontation, White armed himself with a handgun. During an argument, as Tipton fled on a motorcycle, White fired the gun at him. The bullet missed Tipton but struck the plaintiff, Ralph Davis, an innocent bystander who was washing a car nearby. White and Davis did not know each other. The court rejected White’s testimony that the gun discharged accidentally, finding instead that he deliberately intended to shoot Tipton. Davis subsequently obtained a $50,000 default judgment against White in state court on the grounds that White had willfully and maliciously wounded him. After White filed for bankruptcy, Davis initiated this adversary proceeding to have the judgment debt declared non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a debt arising from an injury to an unintended victim qualify as a non-dischargeable debt for a ‘willful and malicious injury’ under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) when the debtor intentionally acted to harm a different person?
Yes. The debt is non-dischargeable. The court held that the debtor’s intent Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis a
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a debt arising from an injury to an unintended victim qualify as a non-dischargeable debt for a ‘willful and malicious injury’ under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) when the debtor intentionally acted to harm a different person?
Conclusion
This case clarifies the scope of the § 523(a)(6) exception to discharge Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerc
Legal Rule
Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6), a debt for an injury is non-dischargeable Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excep
Legal Analysis
The court began its analysis with the text of 11 U.S.C. § Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A debt for injury to an unintended victim is nondischargeable under