excuse as unreasonable, and acts that are performed for an improper purpose as wrongful, we conclude that the facts found by [the lower court] encompassed the concept of malice as used in § 523(a)(6).”). The Bankruptcy Court found that Mar-gulies’s actions were malicious because Margulies offered no excuse for injuring Hough, and held that Margulies’s decision to drive towards Hough in order to force him out of the way was in derogation of “commonly accepted duties in the ordinary relationships among people.” 2013 WL 2149610, at *4 (internal citation omitted). Its decision that the record supported a finding of malice may ultimately prove to be correct. However, in reaching this decision, the Bankruptcy Court relied upon its finding that Margulies acted willfully to injure Hough. Id. (<HOLDING>). Because the Bankruptcy Court’s finding of
holding that the trial court did not err in prohibiting a witness from testifying that the defendant was weakminded because the answer would have been immaterial as weakness of mind would not have constituted a defense nor excused the crime holding that an alien must be released unless the government demonstrates at a bond hearing that the alien poses a risk of flight or a risk of danger to the community holding that risk must be measured at the time the lawsuit is filed holding that parents of minor child waived physicianpatient privilege of child by putting childs medical condition at issue holding that marguliess expectation that hough would blink first hardly excused his act of putting hough at such risk