Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2000 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Connecticut Bank Trust Co. v. Lee, No. Cv90 0111337 S (Sep. 4, 1992)green2 sentences1995See also Connecticut Bank Trust Co. v. Lee , Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. 111337 (September 4, 1992, Ryan J., 7 CSCR 1137 ); Danbury Savings and Loan Assn., Inc. v. Natale , Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury at Danbury, Docket No. 305410 (October 23, 1992, Fuller, J., 7 CSCR 1286 ). 1995See also Connecticut Bank Trust Co. v. Lee, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. 111337 (September 4, 1992, Ryan, J., 7 CSCR 1137 ); Danbury Savings and Loan Assn., Inc. v. Natale, Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury at Danbury, Docket No. 305410 (October 23, 1992, Fuller, J., 7 CSCR 1286 ). | 4 | 4 |
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Stanley Kasalgreen2 sentences1996See, e.g., FDIC v. Kasal, 913 F.2d 487 , 493 (8th Cir. 1990); Astrup v. Midwest Federal Savings Bank, 886 F.2d 1057 , 1059 (8th Cir. 1989); Beighley v. FDIC, supra, 868 F.2d 784 . 1996See, e.g., FDIC v. Kasal, 913 F.2d 487 , 493 (8th Cir. 1990); Astrup v. Midwest Federal Savings Bank, 886 F.2d 1057 , 1059 (8th Cir. 1989); Beighley v. FDIC, supra, 868 F.2d 784 . | 2 | 2 |
Federal Savings & Loan Insurance v. Hunter (In Re Hunter)green2 sentences2000Such claims or defenses arising out of the written agreement between the borrower and the failed bank will not be precluded under the D’Oench Duhme doctrine.” (Citations omitted.) In re Hunter, 100 B.R. 321, 325-26 (Bankr. 2000Such claims or defenses arising out of the written agreement between the borrower and the failed bank will not be precluded under the D’Oench Duhme doctrine.” (Citations omitted.) In re Hunter, 100 B.R. 321, 325-26 (Bankr. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance
green
2 sentences1997In D'Oench, Duhme Co. Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 315 U.S. 447 , 460 , 62 S.Ct. 676 , 86 L.Ed. 956 (1942), the Supreme Court held that a party to a note that has been assumed by the FDIC may not assert a defense against the FDIC based on a secret oral agreement that is "designed to deceive the . . . [FDIC] or would tend to have that effect." The D'Oench Duhme doctrine has been codified at 12 U.S.C. § 1823 (e) which provides that "[n]o agreement which tends to diminish or defeat the interest of the [FDIC] in any asset acquired by it under this section . . . either as security 1997In D'Oench, Duhme Co. Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 315 U.S. 447 , 460 , 62 S.Ct. 676 , 86 L.Ed. 956 (1942), the Supreme Court held that a party to a note that has been assumed by the FDIC may not assert a defense against the FDIC based on a secret oral agreement that is "designed to deceive the . . . [FDIC] or would tend to have that effect." The D'Oench Duhme doctrine has been codified at 12 U.S.C. § 1823 (e) which provides that "[n]o agreement which tends to diminish or defeat the interest of the [FDIC] in any asset acquired by it under this section . . . either as security | 7 | 1992–1999 |
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Blonder, No. Cv 90 44764 S (Apr. 30, 1993)
neutral
2 sentences1995"Pursuant to the common-law D'Oench Duhme doctrine, as CT Page 14496 codified in 12 U.S.C. § 1823 (e), the defendants are barred from defending or counterclaiming in any action by the FDIC as receiver based upon any unrecorded agreement separate from the note." Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. as Receiver of Community National Bank v. Blonder , Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland at Tolland, Docket No. 044764 (April 28, 1993, Klaczak, J., 8 CSCR 590 , 591 ). 1995"Pursuant to the common-law D'Oench Duhme doctrine, as codified in 12 U.S.C. § 1823 (e), the defendants are barred from defending or counterclaiming in any action by the FDIC as receiver based upon any unrecorded agreement separate from the note." Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. as Receiver of Community National Bank v. Blonder, Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland at Tolland, Docket No. 044764 (April 28, 1993, Klaczak, J., 8 CSCR 590 , 591 ). | 4 | 1994–1995 |
Langley v. Federal Deposit Insurance
green
2 sentences1992Defendant LM argues that Langley v. FDIC, 484 U.S. 86 (1987), stands for the proposition that real defenses such as fraud in the factum may be asserted against the FDIC despite the D'Oench Duhme doctrine. 1992Defendant LM argues that Langley v. FDIC, 484 U.S. 86 (1987), stands for the proposition that real defenses such as fraud in the factum may be asserted against the FDIC despite the D'Oench Duhme doctrine. | 4 | 1992–1995 |
Danbury Savings Loan Assoc. v. Natale, No. 30 54 10 (Oct. 23, 1992)
yellow
2 sentences1994However, in Danbury Savings and Loan Assn., Inc. v. Natale, 7 CSCR 1286 (October 23, 1992, Fuller, J.), the court, relying on the D'Oench Duhme doctrine, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment which was directed against the defendant's special defenses. 1994However, in Danbury Savings and Loan Assn., Inc. v. Natale, 7 CSCR 1286 (October 23, 1992, Fuller, J.), the court, relying on the D'Oench Duhme doctrine, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment which was directed against the defendant's special defenses. | 3 | 1994–1995 |
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter v. Roy William Bledsoe, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee
green
2 sentences1998The court ruled that an assignee "stood in the same shoes as the FDIC." The court added that its ruling was "consistent with the common law of assignments, furthers Congressional policy, and is supported by the cases extending the D'Oench Duhme doctrine to private assignees." Id. , 811. 1998The court ruled that an assignee "stood in the same shoes as the FDIC." The court added that its ruling was "consistent with the common law of assignments, furthers Congressional policy, and is supported by the cases extending the D'Oench Duhme doctrine to private assignees." Id. , 811. | 2 | 1997–1998 |
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Giammettei
green
2 sentences1997The D'Oench Duhme doctrine and § 1823(e) have been held to bar the defenses of failure of consideration; D'Oench, Duhme Co. Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., supra, 315 U.S. 460 ; and fraud in the inducement; Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Giammettei, 34 F.3d 51 , 57 (2d Cir. 1994). 1997The D'Oench Duhme doctrine and § 1823(e) have been held to bar the defenses of failure of consideration; D'Oench, Duhme Co. Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., supra, 315 U.S. 460 ; and fraud in the inducement; Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Giammettei, 34 F.3d 51 , 57 (2d Cir. 1994). | 2 | 1995–1997 |
Alvaro Rafael Marquez-Bolano v. United States
green
2 sentences1997Fleet Bank of CT Page 6588 Maine v. Prawer, 789 F. Sup. 451 , 455 (D.Me. 1992), aff'd, 991 F.2d 786 (1st Cir. 1993). 1997Fleet Bank of CT Page 6588 Maine v. Prawer, 789 F. Sup. 451 , 455 (D.Me. 1992), aff'd, 991 F.2d 786 (1st Cir. 1993). | 2 | 1995–1997 |
Harold v. Beighley v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Etc.
green
2 sentences1996"Courts often consider the D'Oench Duhme doctrine and § 1823(e) in tandem, looking to the common law when construing the statute." Beighley v. FDIC, 868 F.2d 776 , 784 (5th Cir. 1989). 1996"Courts often consider the D'Oench Duhme doctrine and § 1823(e) in tandem, looking to the common law when construing the statute." Beighley v. FDIC, 868 F.2d 776 , 784 (5th Cir. 1989). | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Odell Astrup v. Midwest Federal Savings Bank
green
2 sentences1996See, e.g., FDIC v. Kasal, 913 F.2d 487 , 493 (8th Cir. 1990); Astrup v. Midwest Federal Savings Bank, 886 F.2d 1057 , 1059 (8th Cir. 1989); Beighley v. FDIC, supra, 868 F.2d 784 . 1996See, e.g., FDIC v. Kasal, 913 F.2d 487 , 493 (8th Cir. 1990); Astrup v. Midwest Federal Savings Bank, 886 F.2d 1057 , 1059 (8th Cir. 1989); Beighley v. FDIC, supra, 868 F.2d 784 . | 2 | 1996–1996 |
David Bateman v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Everett N. Dobson & Sons, Inc., Party-In-Interest
green
2 sentences1996Bateman v. FDIC, 970 F.2d 924 , 926 (1st Cir. 1992). 1996Bateman v. FDIC, 970 F.2d 924 , 926 (1st Cir. 1992). | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Resolution Trust Corporation, as Receiver of Community Savings & Loan Association v. Peter Juergens
green
2 sentences1997Further, "[l]ack of consideration or any other defense against payment to a federally insured financial institution or its receiver must be plainly evidenced by the institution's formal and board-approved records." Resolution Trust Corp. v. Juergens, 965 F.2d 149 , 155 (7th Cir. 1992). 1997Further, "[l]ack of consideration or any other defense against payment to a federally insured financial institution or its receiver must be plainly evidenced by the institution's formal and board-approved records." Resolution Trust Corp. v. Juergens, 965 F.2d 149 , 155 (7th Cir. 1992). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Howell v. Continental Credit Corp.
green
2 sentences1994"Both D'Oench and 1823(e) have been applied numerous times to effectuate the public policy interest in not enforcing `secret agreements' against the FDIC when it is carrying out its statutorily-mandated duties to protect depositors." Howell v. Continental Credit Corp., 655 F.2d 743 , 746 (1981). 1994"Both D'Oench and 1823(e) have been applied numerous times to effectuate the public policy interest in not enforcing `secret agreements' against the FDIC when it is carrying out its statutorily-mandated duties to protect depositors." Howell v. Continental Credit Corp., 655 F.2d 743 , 746 (1981). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.