Riverside Park Realty Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 8 district · 12 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1819 · 12 U.S.C. § 1823 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Relies on D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance · Hecht Co. v. Bowles · Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co. · Smith v. Westchester County Bar Ass'n · Roth v. Bank of the Commonwealth
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[n]one of the policies that favor the invocation of [Sec. 1823(e) ] are present ... because the terms of the agreement that tend to diminish the rights of the FDIC appear in writing on the face of the agreement that the FDIC seeks to enforce.'”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The language of 1823(e), which provides that '[n]o agreement which tends to diminish or defeat the right, title or interest of the [FDIC] in any asset acquires by it under this section ... shall be valid against the Corporation,' indicates that it applies only to an action or defense which is anchored in an agreement separate and collateral from the instrument which the FDIC is seeking to protect.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The most prominent reason for granting a preliminary injunction is that without such judicial intervention into the affairs of the parties prior to a full trial on the merits of the case, the applicant for such relief is likely to suffer irreparable injury. Indeed the prevention of harm of such kind or maginitude as cannot be adequately redressed through legal remedies is the very raison d’etre for the extraordinary equitable remedy of injunction. Therefore, “[ojnly when the threatened harm would impair the court’s ability to grant an effective remedy is there really a need for preliminary relief.” Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2948.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.