Carter v. Derwinski’s Empirical Analysis
987 F.2d 611 · 1993
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2021 · most notably Malik v. Brown (1995), Boley v. Brown (1993)
13 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. · Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon · Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc. · J. I. Case Co. v. Borak
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... the VA always possesses a right of indemnity against the veteran for the amount of guarantee paid to the lender. This is an independent right of indemnity created by federal law, which state courts must honor. See McKnight v. United States, 259 F.2d 540, 544 (9th Cir.1958) (indemnity actions by VA ‘arise[ ] under the federal law and cannot be impaired by a state statute’); see also Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S. 386 , 67 S.Ct. 810 , 91 L.Ed. 967 (1947) (state courts must entertain federal causes of action). Because this federal indemnity right doesn’t depend on state foreclosure or deficiency law, preemption analysis is unnecessary. ‘[T]he VA’s right to indemnity derives from a contract independent of the mortgage. As indemnitor the veteran is in the same position as the guarantor: accordingly ... [the state] law does not impair the VA’s right of indemnification and ... there is no need for finding federal preemption.’ Vail, 946 F.2d at 592 . State laws which affect lenders’ ability to recapture additional amounts from veterans after foreclosure therefore do not affect the VA’s independent right to seek recovery from veterans. Those laws are not preempted by federal law; they are simply irrelevant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The only reasonable conclusion we can reach from reading the regulation is that the right of indemnity stands on equal footing with the right of subrogation. This conclusion is not altered by the fact that we deal here with an administrative regulation rather than a statute:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carter v. Derwinski“... we cannot agree with the Whitehead premise that when the state provides dual foreclosure procedures the judicial foreclosure is primary and the non-judicial procedure is secondary. No rationale exists, for this conclusion.”
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.