Kathryn Nielsen v. ACS, Inc.

Eighth Circuit

Kathryn Nielsen v. ACS, Inc.

622 F. App'x 594

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 2015

Docket14-3584

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 622 F. App'x 594 (Kathryn Nielsen v. ACS, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kathryn Nielsen v. ACS, Inc., 622 F. App'x 594 (8th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kathryn Nielsen appeals from the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirming the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court 1 denying her request to discharge her student loan debt under the “undue hardship” provision of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). We have reviewed the record and Nielsen’s arguments on appeal, and we find no basis for reversal. See Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Jesperson, 571 F.3d 775, 778-79 (8th Cir.2009) (standards of review). To the extent Nielsen has raised new arguments on appeal, we decline to consider them. See Juarez v. Minnesota, 217 F.3d 1014, 1017 (8th Cir.2000) (“We generally decline to address arguments raised for the first time on appeal — ”).

We affirm the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.

1

. The Honorable Anita L. Shodeen, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Kathryn Nielsen appeals from the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirming the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court 1 denying her request to discharge her student loan debt under the “undue hardship” provision of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). We have reviewed the record and Nielsen’s arguments on appeal, and we find no basis for reversal. See Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Jesperson, 571 F.3d 775, 778-79 (8th Cir.2009) (standards of review). To the extent Nielsen has raised new arguments on appeal, we decline to consider them. See Juarez v. Minnesota, 217 F.3d 1014, 1017 (8th Cir.2000) (“We generally decline to address arguments raised for the first time on appeal — ”).

We affirm the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.

1

. The Honorable Anita L. Shodeen, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

622 F. App'x 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kathryn-nielsen-v-acs-inc-ca8-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack