proceeding is a core proceeding under the Bankruptcy Code and as such is equitable in nature. See id. at 1505. The court reasoned that “[a] bankruptcy discharge and questions concerning the dischargeability of certain debts, involve issues with an equitable history and for which there was no entitlement to a jury trial in the courts of England prior to the merger of law and equity.” Id. (quoting In re Hooper, 112 B.R. 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. BAP 1990)). Thus, given the equitable nature of the dischargeability proceeding, the court held that debtor was not afforded the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury. See id. The reasoning underlying the Hallahan decision has been accepted by a legion of other federal courts. See, e.g., In re White, 222 B.R. 831, 834-35 (Bankr.W.D.Tenn.1998) (<HOLDING>); In re Tanner, Nos. 97B00073, 97A00517, 1997
holding that dischargeability proceedings are inherently equitable in nature and as such parties are not entitled to jury trials holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to proceedings other than criminal trials holding that under the hallahan progeny of cases parties are not afforded the right to jury trials in dischargeability proceedings holding that juveniles are not entitled to jury trials holding that the bankruptcy court has constitutional and implied statutory authority to conduct jury trials in core proceedings