American First Federal, Inc. v. Lake Forest Park, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
198 F.3d 1259 · 1999
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Federal Deposit Insurance v. McFarland (2001), Courtney v. Halleran (2007)
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Barrett v. United States · National Union Fire Insurance v. City Savings, F.S.B. · Irby v. Bittick · Federal Deposit Insurance v. Newhart · United States v. Second National Bank
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We agree with our sister courts that an affirmative defense, that is, “a response to a plaintiffs claim which attacks the plaintiffs legal right to bring an action,” Black’s Law Dictionary 38 (6th ed. 1991), is not subject to the administrative exhaustion requirement of Section 1821(d)(13)(D). However, a court must look beyond the nomenclature of a request for relief to ascertain whether it is a true affirmative defense or is, in actuality, a claim requiring exhaustion as a prerequisite to jurisdiction. Whether a request for relief is titled an affirmative defense or a counterclaim is not dispositive to the question of subject matter jurisdiction. The germane question is whether the remedy sought by a party, regardless of its label, is encompassed by Section 1821(d)(13)(D), that is, whether the assertion is in reality a claim against the assets or actions of the failed institution or the RTC as receiver.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The plain language of FIRREA broadly applies to (a) “any claim relating to any act” of the failed bank or the FDIC as receiver for such institution,” even if the FDIC and failed bank are not named as defendants; and (b) any “action seeking a determination of rights with respect to[ ] the assets of any depository institution for which the Corporation has been appointed receiver,” even if the assets are no longer in the possession of the FDIC. 12 U.S.C. § 1821 (d)(13)(D). Accordingly, courts have consistently held that the plain language of § 1821(d)(13)(D) bars claims “relating” to the acts of the receiver or seeking the assets of the failed bank, even when those claims are asserted against the third-party purchaser of failed-bank assets from the receiver.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The bank], having purchased the note from the [FDIC], stands in the shoes of the [FDIC] and acquires its protected status under FIRREA”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.