Federal Deposit Insurance v. Kasal’s Empirical Analysis
913 F.2d 487 · 1990
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dunmar Corp. (1995), Columbus Avenue Realty Trust Capitol Bank Trust Company v. Columbus Avenue Realty Trust (1992)
25 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 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. § 1819 · 12 U.S.C. § 1822 · 12 U.S.C. § 1823 · 28 U.S.C. § 1446
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond · D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance · Langley v. Federal Deposit Insurance
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) 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, (3) 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”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We believe it is unnecessary for this court to determine whether the settlement agreement constituted accord and satisfaction under Iowa law. There is no genuine issue as to the material facts that at the time the PDIC took over the bank, the original promissory notes were in the bank’s files, the notes bore no notation that they had been paid, and the minutes of neither the board of directors nor the loan committee indicated any settlement agreement. This court recognizes that “the PDIC must be able to rely on the records of the failed bank,” and such reliance would be defeated “if ‘seemingly unqualified notes [were] subject to undisclosed conditions.’ ” In view of the purpose of section 1823(e) to permit this reliance, we believe that the section’s requirements must be applied, to the agreement purportedly settling the promissory notes which were found in the bank’s files. The evidence shows the agreement failed to meet at least one of the requirements — that approval by ■ the board of directors or loan committee be reflected in the minutes of the board or committee.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the common law doctrine of D’Oench, Duhme ... provides a viable independent basis for invalidating collateral agreements against the FDIC even after the enactment of § 1823(e)”
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.