No. 21-5290

Gordon Nitka v. Department of Education

Lower Court: Tenth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-08-04
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: bankruptcy-law brunner-test default loan-default repayment-period rosenberg speculative-income student-loan-discharge student-loans undue-hardship
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-09-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)

In analyzing the second prong of the Brunner test to determine 'undue hardship,' how should courts weigh speculation on the borrower's future income potential? And, if a borrower's loan defaults, becoming immediately due in full, was Rosenberg correct in holding that the repayment period has ended?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED A. In analyzing the second prong of the Brunner test to determine “undue hardship,” how should courts weigh speculation on the borrower’s future income potential? And, if a borrower’s loan defaults, becoming immediately due in full, was Rosenberg correct in holding that the repayment period has ended? B. When a company submits testimony from an employee who did not play a personal role in the unfolding of the events and was merely supplied documentation in preparation of trial, under what circumstances would the employee’s testimony constitute lay testimony? a . ii II. PARTIES All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. Il.

Docket Entries

2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-08-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-08-16
Waiver of right of respondent Dept. of Education to respond filed.
2021-07-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 3, 2021)

Attorneys

Dept. of Education
Brian H. FletcherActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Gordon Nitka
Gordon Nitka — Petitioner