Waterview Management Company v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (1997)
green
· 78 citation events
across 10 courts.
Showing the 23 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199720112026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Bank of Manhattan, N.A. v. Federal Deposit Insurance (2015)
Id. at 701.
green
Perry Capital LLC v. Steven Mnuchin (2017)
Co. v. FDIC, 105 F.3d 696, 700-01 (D.C.
so interpreting a nearly identical provision in FIRREA, 12 U.S.C. § 1821 (e)
green
LNV Corporation v. Outsource Services Management (2017)
Waterview Management Co. v. FDIC likewise held that § 1821(d)(2)(G)(i)(II) does not preempt state-law contract rights and does not provide blanket preemption of valid pre-receivership contracts. 105 F.3d 696, 698, 699 (D.C.
green
Perry Capital LLC v. Steven Mnuchin (Reissued) (2017)
Co. v. FDIC, 105 F.3d 696, 700-01 (D.C.
so interpreting a nearly identical provision in FIRREA, 12 U.S.C. § 1821 (e)
green
Perry Capital LLC v. Mnuchin (2017)
Co. v. FDIC, 105 F.3d 696, 700-01 (D.C.
so interpreting a nearly identical provision in FIRREA, 12 U.S.C. § 1821 (e)
Co. v. FDIC, 105 F.3d 696, 699 (D.C.
Co. v. FDIC, 105 F.3d 696, 699 (D.C.Cir.1997).
green
National Wildlife Federation v. Browner (1997)
Co. v. FDIC, 105 F.3d 696, 699 (D.C.Cir.1997); Tao v. Freeh, 27 F.3d 635, 638 (D.C.Cir.1994). 8 The Federation contends that EPA has a mandatory duty to review Michigan's denial of its petition under 40 C.F.R. § 131.20 (c), which provides in pertinent part: 9 The State shall submit the results of the [triennial] review ... and any revisions of the standards to the Regional Administrator for review and approval, within 30 days of the final State action to adopt and certify th…
green
National Wildlife Federation v. Browner (1997)
Co. v. FDIC, 105 F.3d 696, 699 (D.C.Cir.1997); Tao v. Freeh, 27 F.3d 635, 638 (D.C.Cir.1994).
Circuit’s decision to that effect in Waterview Management Co. v. FDIC, 105 F.3d 696, 699 (D.C.Cir.1997).
Courts have ruled numerous times that, despite its “800-pound gorilla”-like statutory powers, Nashville Lodging, 59 F.3d at 243 , the FDIC overstepped its legal authority, see, e.g., Ernst & Young, 374 F.3d at 584 ; Sharpe v. FDIC, 126 F.3d 1147, 1155, 1157 (9th Cir.1997); Waterview Management Co. v. FDIC, 105 F.3d 696, 701-02 (D.C.Cir.1997); cf. Nashville Lodging, 59 F.3d at 246 , and today this Court joins them.
green
Etcheverry v. Tri-Ag Serv., Inc. (2000)
(D.C.Cir. 1997) 105 F.3d 696, 699 [summarizing Cipollone 's holding].) Ferebee 's fundamental thesisthat liability under state law for failure to warn is not a requirement for labeling or packaging different from that required under FIFRA has been rejected by the federal courts since Cipollone as "sophistry" and "silly," and the attempted distinction has been characterized as "illusory." "The MacDonalds argue ... that state common law tort judgments are not `requirements':…
green
Kubicki v. Medtronic, Inc. (2018)
Co. v. FDIC, 105 F.3d 696, 700 (D.C.
green
Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (2017)
Co. v. FDIC, 105 F.3d 696, 700 (D.C.
stating that the FIRREA provisión does not preempt compliance with state law where in doing so the conservator is not subject to “direction or supervision”
green
Anchor Savings Bank, FSB v. United States (2015)
Co. v. FDIC, 105 F.3d 696, 701 (D.C.Cir.1997) (noting that this section applies to the FDIC, as the successor to the Resolution Trust Corporation, to sell assets “in its capacity as a conservator or receiver ... without obtaining any prior approval.”); Payne v. Sec.
Co. v. FDIC, 105 F.3d 696, 701 (D.C.Cir.1997) (finding that state law governs contractual relationships under FIRREA and that receivers cannot “increase the value of the asset in its hands by simply ‘preempting’ out of existence pre-receivership contractual obligations”); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Diamond, 45 F.3d 665 , 670 (2d Cir.1995) (“[T]he law of each state will furnish the contract principles that govern the relationship; the RTC, like the FDIC in O’Melveny , steps in…
Waterview Management Co. v. FDIC, 105 F.3d 696, 699 (D.C.Cir.1997) (“Indeed, to hold that the federal government could simply vitiate the terms of existing assets, taking rights of value from private owners with no compensation in return, would raise serious constitutional issues.”).
green
330 Acquisition Co. v. Regency Savings Bank, F.S.B. (2005)
Corp., 105 F3d 696, 699 [1997]), it merely permits such rights to be disaffirmed upon the satisfaction of certain statutorily prescribed conditions (see 12 USC § 1821 [e] [1], [3]) never met in the matter at bar.
Co. v. FDIC, 105 F.3d 696, 698 (D.C.Cir.1997).
Co. v. FDIC, 105 F.3d 696, 701 (D.C.Cir.1997); Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United States, 275 U.S. 331, 346 , 48 S.Ct. 194 , 72 L.Ed. 303 (1928); United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 45 , 73 S.Ct. 543 , 97 L.Ed. 770 (1953).
green
Federal Deposit Insurance v. United States (2001)
Co. v. F.D.I.C., 105 F.3d 696, 701 (D.C.Cir.1997); Statesman, 41 Fed.Cl. at 11 .
It is well settled that “where a statute is susceptible of two constructions, by one of which grave and doubtful constitutional questions arise and by the other of which such questions are avoided, [the proper course by the court] is to adopt the latter.” Jones v. U.S., 526 U.S. 227, 239 , 119 S.Ct. 1215 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999); see also Waterview Management Co. v. FDIC, 105 F.3d 696, 701 (D.C.Cir.1997).
green
Statesman Savings Holding Corp. v. United States (1998)
See Waterview Management Co. v. FDIC, 105 F.3d 696, 701 (D.C.Cir.1997) (quoting O’Melveny & Myers v. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79, 86 , 114 S.Ct. 2048, 2054 , 129 L.Ed.2d 67 (1994)).