Resolution Trust Corp. v. Midwest Federal Savings Bank’s Empirical Analysis
36 F.3d 785 · 1993
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Sahni v. American Diversified Partners (1996), Tri-State Hotels, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (1996)
30 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 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
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1441A · 12 U.S.C. § 1821 · 12 U.S.C. § 1823 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Vandygriff v. Phillips · D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · United States v. McConney
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“satisfaction of the contemporaneousness requirement should be considered in light of commercial reality.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Riccardo Dimuzio Ruth Dimuzio, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Resolution Trust Corporation in Its Capacity as Receiver of Carteret Savings Bank, F.A. And in Its Capacity as Conservator of Carteret Federal Savings Bank (d.c. Civil No. 94-Cv-01559). Riccardo Dimuzio Ruth Dimuzio v. Resolution Trust Corporation as Conservator of Carteret Federal Savings Bank and Carteret Savings Bank (d.c. Civil No. 94-Cv-04800). Kazuyuki Kameda Taneko Kameda Esmie J. Wint, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Resolution Trust Corporation as Conservator of Carteret Federal Savings Bank and Carteret Savings Bank (d.c. Civil No. 94-Cv-04831). Appeal of Riccardo Dimuzio, Ruth Dimuzio, Kazuyuki Kameda, Taneko Kameda and Esmie Wint · Duraflex Sales Service Corporation v. Whe Mechanical Contractors“(e) Agreements against interests of Corporation (1) In general No agreement which tends to diminish or defeat the interest of the Corporation in any asset acquired by it under this section or section 1821 of this title, either as security for a loan or by purchase or as receiver of any insured depository institution, shall be valid against the Corporation unless such agreement— (B)is in writing, (B) was executed by the depository institution and any person claiming an adverse interest thereunder, including the obligor, contemporaneously with the acquisition of the asset by the depository institution, (C) was approved by the board of directors of the depository institution or its loan committee, which approval shall be reflected in the minutes of said board or committee, and (D) has been, continuously, from the time of its execution, an official record of the depository institution.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(D) Limitation on judicial review Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no court shall have jurisdiction over— (i) any claim or action for payment from, or any action seeking a determination of rights with respect to, the assets of any depository institution for which the Corporation has been appointed receiver, including assets which the Corporation may acquire from itself as such receiver; or (ii) any claim relating to any act or omission of such institution or the Corporation as receiver.”
2 later decisions 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.