Savers Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Amberley Huntsville, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1441A · 12 U.S.C. § 1823 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance · Langley v. Federal Deposit Insurance · 426 So. 2d 457 - Adderhold v. Adderhold
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the [FDIC] assumes control of a bank and attempts to enforce a note under the terms on its face, the borrower against whom the note is enforced cannot assert as a defense a collateral written agreement by the bank not to collect on the note. The [Supreme] Court held that permitting such collateral agreements to frustrate the collection of bank loans by the FDIC would completely destroy the ability of the FDIC to assess the solvency of lending institutions. . . . As a result of this decision, the principle of prohibiting the enforcement of agreements not appearing in bank records against federal agencies has become known as the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]ny arguments relating to the duties owed by the parties ... must be based on the terms appearing on the face of the ... documents.”
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.