Admiral Financial Corporation, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. United States (2003)

green · 41 citation events across 2 courts. Showing the 11 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 11

Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

200320142026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green Barron Bancshares, Inc. v. United States (2004)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir. · 3 citations in this opinion

Corp. v. United States, 329 F.3d 1372, 1380-82 (Fed.Cir.2003); Landmark, 256 F.3d at 1379-82 .

green Holland v. United States (2010)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

Corp. v. United States, 329 F.3d 1372, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2003).

green Cias, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp. (2007)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

Corp. v. United States, 329 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed.Cir.2003), where the court wrote that “Admiral ... seek[s] total restitution in the amount of $14,395,075, comprised of $11,072,075, representing capital contributions to Haven, and $3,323,000, representing the amount that Admiral claims it saved the government.” Similarly in Nissho Iwai Am.

green Barron Bancshares, Inc. v. United States (2004)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

Corp. v. United States, 329 F.3d 1372, 1380-82 (Fed.Cir.2003); Landmark, 256 F.3d at 1379-82 .

green Federal Deposit Insurance v. United States (2003)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

Corp. v. United States, 329 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2003).

green Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. United States (2003)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

Corp. v. United States, 329 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2003).

green Hansen Bancorp, Inc. v. United States (2003)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

Id. at 1374-1375, 5 .

green Claybrook ex rel. Estate of Downey Financial Corp. v. United States (2012)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl. · 3 citations in this opinion

Corp. v. United States, 329 F.3d 1372, 1382 (Fed.Cir.2003))).

green Sterling Savings v. United States (2003)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

Corp. v. United States, 329 F.3d 1372, 1382 (Fed.Cir.2003), aff'g, 51 Fed.Cl. 366 (2002) (“We hold that, because the sum of (i) the FDIC’s claim and (ii) Admiral’s restitution claims that the FDIC asserts it owes is less than the amount the failed thrift owes to the government, the case-or-controversy requirement is not satisfied as to the FDIC.”).

green Smith v. United States (2003)

Cited · Fed. Cl. · signal: see

See Admiral Financial Corp. v. United States, 329 F.3d 1372 (Fed.Cir.2003)(“the critical question is whether claims being asserted by the FDIC and claims being asserted by the plaintiff ... total less than the government’s priority claim arising from advances made to satisfy deposit liabilities of the failed thrift.

green AG Route Seven Partnership v. United States (2003)

Cited · Fed. Cl. · signal: see

See Admiral Financial Corp. v. United States, 329 F.3d 1372 (Fed.Cir.2003); Landmark Land Co., 256 F.3d 1365 ; Glass, 258 F.3d 1349 . .