Account information only. It is never shown to the AI client you connect, and it is kept apart from your research — which is not logged at all.
Your token is the key to the MCP: claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode take it in the URL; Claude Code and the rest take it as a bearer header. It is also in your welcome email. Install instructions.
No token yet. One token per address, shown once and mailed to you with setup steps — claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode need it in the URL; Claude Code and the rest take it as a bearer header. Install instructions.
Your MCP token. Anyone holding it can search on your subscription, so keep it off shared screens.
Header form (recommended) — this endpoint, with
Authorization: Bearer <your token>.
URL form — for claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode, which cannot set a header. The whole credential is in the address:
The dedicated fast index: searches run on a machine nobody else queues for, with full-text highlighted excerpts. Higher MCP limits, and semantic search when it lands.
See ProThank you.
Manage billingDelete my account: email [email protected] and it is done by hand, usually the same day. (Self-serve deletion is not built yet.)
Free, and it takes a minute. Registered visitors skip the Cloudflare checks, and your MCP token for Claude or ChatGPT is issued at the end of this.
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.
Here is your MCP token. It is shown once — it is also in the welcome email we just sent you, with setup steps.
Header form (recommended) — this endpoint, with
Authorization: Bearer <your token>.
URL form — for claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode, which cannot set a header. The whole credential is in the address:
That address already had a token, so we did not issue a second one — two live credentials for one mailbox is how people end up with a working laptop and a broken office machine. Your connector URL is in your inbox under “Your Syfert legal research connector URL”; if it is gone, call 904-383-7448.
14 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1992–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Stanley Kasalgreen2 sentences2000Corp. v. Kasal, 913 F.2d 487, 492 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1119 , 111 S. Ct. 1072 , 112 L. 1994See, 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 ; FDIC v. Vestring , 620 F. Sup. 1271 , 1274 (D.Kan. 1985). | 2 | 2 |
Howell v. Continental Credit Corp.green2 sentences2001Although we recognize that a single, bilateral contract may be valid because it may satisfy the requirements of 12 U.S.C. § 1823 (e); Howell v. Continental Credit Corp., 655 F.2d 743, 747 (7th Cir. 1981) (bilateral obligations in one document may serve as source of defense against FDIC; D’Oench, Duhme doctrine and § 1823 [e] apply only where defenses to facially valid notes and guarantees are based on undisclosed agreements); the mortgage note and separate subordinated debenture agreement in this case were not consolidated in a manner that would compel the conclusion that they embodied a singl 1995"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 it statutorily mandated duties to CT Page 14495 protect depositors." Howell v. Continental Credit Corp., 655 F.2d 743 , 746 (7th Cir. 1981). | 1 | 3 |
Honeywell, Inc. v. Minnesota Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Ass'ngreen2 sentences2001Corp., 208 F.3d 959, 964 (11th Cir. 2000) (“ ‘Congress did not intend [Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989] to displace the D’Oench [Duhme] doctrine, but rather intended to continue the harmonious, forty-year coexistence of [§ 1823 (e)] and the D’Oench [Duhme] doctrine’ ”), Federal Financial Co. v. Hall, 108 F.3d 46, 49 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 858 , 118 S. Ct. 157 , 139 L. 2001See Federal Financial Co. v. Hall, 108 F.3d 46, 49 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 858 , 118 S. Ct. 157 , 139 L. | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Federal Deposit Insurancegreen1 sentence2001Corp., 208 F.3d 959, 964 (11th Cir. 2000) (“ ‘Congress did not intend [Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989] to displace the D’Oench [Duhme] doctrine, but rather intended to continue the harmonious, forty-year coexistence of [§ 1823 (e)] and the D’Oench [Duhme] doctrine’ ”), Federal Financial Co. v. Hall, 108 F.3d 46, 49 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 858 , 118 S. Ct. 157 , 139 L. | 1 | 1 |
The Inn At Saratoga Associates v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporationgreen1 sentence2001Corp., 60 F.3d 78, 82 (2d Cir. 1995) (although “asset” requirement for application of § 1823 [e] not satisfied, common-law equitable estoppel rule in D’Oench, Duhme & Co. applied) and Federal Deposit Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Bruce G. Murphy v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Southeast Bank, N.A.green1 sentence2001Corp., 61 F.3d 34, 40 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
Divall Insured Income Fund Limited Partnership, a Wisconsin Limited Partnership v. Boatmen's First National Bank of Kansas Citygreen1 sentence2001Corp. v. Deglau, 207 F.3d 153, 171 (3d Cir. 2000) (D’Oench, Duhme doctrine is not applicable common law in light of O’Melveny & Meyers and Atherton; § 1823 [e] is comprehensive and detailed and D’Oench, Duhme doctrine need not supplement it as separate common-law doctrine), DiVall Insured Income Fund, L.P. v. Boatmen’s First National Bank, 69 F.3d 1398, 1402 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding that O’Melveny & Meyers removes federal common-law D’Oench, Duhme doctrine and federal holder in due course doctrine as separate bars to defenses against FDIC) and Murphy v. Federal Deposit Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Appliances, Inc. v. Yostgreen2 sentences2001See Appliances, Inc. v. Yost, 181 Conn. 207, 210-11 , 435 A.2d 1 (1980) (“a promissory note is nothing more than a written contract for the payment of money”); see also Community Bank of the Ozarks v. Federal Deposit Ins. 2001See Appliances, Inc. v. Yost, 181 Conn. 207, 210-11 , 435 A.2d 1 (1980) (“a promissory note is nothing more than a written contract for the payment of money”); see also Community Bank of the Ozarks v. Federal Deposit Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Weber v. New West Federal Savings & Loan Assn.green2 sentences2001See part I of this opinion; see also Weber v. New West Federal Savings & Loan Assn., 10 Cal. App. 4th 97 , 107 n.6, 12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 468 (1992) (comparing common-law D’Oench, Duhme doctrine and § 1823 [e]). 2001See part I of this opinion; see also Weber v. New West Federal Savings & Loan Assn., 10 Cal. App. 4th 97 , 107 n.6, 12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 468 (1992) (comparing common-law D’Oench, Duhme doctrine and § 1823 [e]). | 1 | 1 |
Federal Financial Company v. Michael T. Hall, Trustee Michael T. Hallgreen2 sentences2001Corp., 208 F.3d 959, 964 (11th Cir. 2000) (“ ‘Congress did not intend [Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989] to displace the D’Oench [Duhme] doctrine, but rather intended to continue the harmonious, forty-year coexistence of [§ 1823 (e)] and the D’Oench [Duhme] doctrine’ ”), Federal Financial Co. v. Hall, 108 F.3d 46, 49 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 858 , 118 S. Ct. 157 , 139 L. 2001See Federal Financial Co. v. Hall, 108 F.3d 46, 49 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 858 , 118 S. Ct. 157 , 139 L. | 1 | 1 |
Harold v. Beighley v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Etc.green1 sentence2001Corp., 868 F.2d 776, 783-84 (5th Cir. 1989) (where no single document provides terms of agreement, mere reference in various bank records does not satisfy writing requirement of § 1823 [e]). | 1 | 1 |
Duraflex Sales & Service Corporation v. W.H.E. Mechanical Contractorsgreen1 sentence2001Mechanical Contractors, 110 F.3d 927, 932 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[p]ut simply, the D’Oench, Duhme doctrine precludes obligors from asserting side deals or secret agreements which may mislead bank examiners against [Resolution Trust]” [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Deglaugreen1 sentence2001Corp. v. Deglau, 207 F.3d 153, 171 (3d Cir. 2000) (D’Oench, Duhme doctrine is not applicable common law in light of O’Melveny & Meyers and Atherton; § 1823 [e] is comprehensive and detailed and D’Oench, Duhme doctrine need not supplement it as separate common-law doctrine), DiVall Insured Income Fund, L.P. v. Boatmen’s First National Bank, 69 F.3d 1398, 1402 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding that O’Melveny & Meyers removes federal common-law D’Oench, Duhme doctrine and federal holder in due course doctrine as separate bars to defenses against FDIC) and Murphy v. Federal Deposit Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Federal Financial Co.green2 sentences2001Corp., 208 F.3d 959, 964 (11th Cir. 2000) (“ ‘Congress did not intend [Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989] to displace the D’Oench [Duhme] doctrine, but rather intended to continue the harmonious, forty-year coexistence of [§ 1823 (e)] and the D’Oench [Duhme] doctrine’ ”), Federal Financial Co. v. Hall, 108 F.3d 46, 49 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 858 , 118 S. Ct. 157 , 139 L. 2001Corp., 208 F.3d 959, 964 (11th Cir. 2000) (“ ‘Congress did not intend [Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989] to displace the D’Oench [Duhme] doctrine, but rather intended to continue the harmonious, forty-year coexistence of [§ 1823 (e)] and the D’Oench [Duhme] doctrine’ ”), Federal Financial Co. v. Hall, 108 F.3d 46, 49 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 858 , 118 S. Ct. 157 , 139 L. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 672864green1 sentence2000Corp. v. Bathgate, 27 F.3d 850, 877 (3d Cir. 1994) (D’Oench, Duhme doctrine and § 1823 [e] can lead to what might be considered harsh result); Federal Deposit Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Texarkana National Bankgreen1 sentence2000Corp. v. Texarkana National Bank, 874 F.2d 264, 268 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1043 , 110 S. Ct. 837 , 107 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Alan P. Vernon v. Resolution Trust Corporationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ledo Financial Corporation v. Harry L. Summers Daniel W. Dierdorff Sun Savings and Loan Association David Eichten, and Does 1 Through 50, Inclusivegreen1 sentence2001Corp. v. McClanahan, 795 F.2d 512 , 514 n.l (5th Cir. 1986) (no reason to suppose that Congress intended to supplant common-law D’Oench, Duhme doctrine of estoppel with § 1823 [e]); accord Ledo Financial Corp. v. Summers, 122 F.3d 825 , 829 n.2 (9th Cir. 1997) (not reaching question of whether D’Oench, Duhme doctrine overruled by O’Melveny & Meyers and Atherton); Federal Deposit Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance
green
2 sentences1994Assuming, without deciding, that such a special defense is not barred by the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine [ D'Oench, Duhme Company v. FDIC , 315 U.S. 447 (1942)], or by 12 U.S.C. § 1823 (e), the defendants have presented no credible evidence suggesting improper conduct by the bank. 1992Application of 12 U.S.C. § 1823 (e) and the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine typically involves secret side agreements between failed banks and their borrowers: [T]he Supreme Court in D'Oench, Duhme Co. v. FDIC, 315 U.S. 447 , 62 S.Ct. 676 , 86 L.Ed. 956 (1942), held that there was "a federal policy to protect respondent [FDIC], and the public fund which it administers, against misrepresentations as to the CT Page 4055 securities or other assets in the portfolios of the banks which respondent insures or to which it makes loans." Id., at 547 , 62 S.Ct. at 679 . | 5 | 1992–1995 |
Steelcase, Inc. v. Crystal
green
2 sentences2001Powers v. Olson, 252 Conn. 98, 105 , 742 A.2d 799 (2000); Steelcase, Inc. v. Crystal, 238 Conn. 571, 577 , 680 A.2d 289 (1996). 2001Powers v. Olson, 252 Conn. 98, 105 , 742 A.2d 799 (2000); Steelcase, Inc. v. Crystal, 238 Conn. 571, 577 , 680 A.2d 289 (1996). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Powers v. Olson
green
2 sentences2001Powers v. Olson, 252 Conn. 98, 105 , 742 A.2d 799 (2000); Steelcase, Inc. v. Crystal, 238 Conn. 571, 577 , 680 A.2d 289 (1996). 2001Powers v. Olson, 252 Conn. 98, 105 , 742 A.2d 799 (2000); Steelcase, Inc. v. Crystal, 238 Conn. 571, 577 , 680 A.2d 289 (1996). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Henry E. McClanahan
green
1 sentence2001Corp. v. McClanahan, 795 F.2d 512 , 514 n.l (5th Cir. 1986) (no reason to suppose that Congress intended to supplant common-law D’Oench, Duhme doctrine of estoppel with § 1823 [e]); accord Ledo Financial Corp. v. Summers, 122 F.3d 825 , 829 n.2 (9th Cir. 1997) (not reaching question of whether D’Oench, Duhme doctrine overruled by O’Melveny & Meyers and Atherton); Federal Deposit Ins. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Zayas
green
2 sentences2000D “It is an abiding principle of jurisprudence that common sense does not take flight when one enters a courtroom.” State v. Zayas, 195 Conn. 611, 620 , 490 A.2d 68 (1985). 2000D “It is an abiding principle of jurisprudence that common sense does not take flight when one enters a courtroom.” State v. Zayas, 195 Conn. 611, 620 , 490 A.2d 68 (1985). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Transoil (Jersey), Ltd. v. Rex Oil, Ltd.
green
1 sentence2000Corp. v. Texarkana National Bank, 874 F.2d 264, 268 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1043 , 110 S. Ct. 837 , 107 L. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Foxmeyer Corp. v. Stone's Pharmacy, Inc.
green
1 sentence2000Corp. v. Texarkana National Bank, 874 F.2d 264, 268 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1043 , 110 S. Ct. 837 , 107 L. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Burrell v. City of Los Angeles
green
1 sentence2000Corp. v. Texarkana National Bank, 874 F.2d 264, 268 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1043 , 110 S. Ct. 837 , 107 L. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Doggett v. United States
green
1 sentence2000Corp. v. Kasal, 913 F.2d 487, 492 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1119 , 111 S. Ct. 1072 , 112 L. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Kasal v. Federal Deposit Insurance
green
1 sentence2000Corp. v. Kasal, 913 F.2d 487, 492 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1119 , 111 S. Ct. 1072 , 112 L. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
cluster 564328
green
1 sentence1996"The rule emerging from D'Oench, Duhme is that no agreement between a borrower and a bank which does not plainly appear on the face of an obligation or in the bank's official records is enforceable against the FDIC." Adams v. Madison Realty Development, Inc., 937 F.2d 845 , 852 (1991). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Sweeney v. Resolution Trust Corp. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Federal Deposit Ins. v. Briarwood Dev., No. Cv92 295867 (Sep. 3, 1993) green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Odell Astrup v. Midwest Federal Savings Bank
green
1 sentence1994See, 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 ; FDIC v. Vestring , 620 F. Sup. 1271 , 1274 (D.Kan. 1985). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Resolution Trust Corporation v. Oaks Apartments Joint Venture
green
1 sentence1994"The doctrine's applicability depends upon whether or not the alleged agreement was `designed deceive the creditors or the public authority or would have that effect.' If borrowers lend themselves in any way to a scheme or arrangement whereby the banking authority is or is likely to be mislead, the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine will prevent the enforcement of the agreement." (Citations omitted.) Resolution Trust Corporation v. Oaks Apartments Joint Venture, 966 F.2d 995 , 998-99 (5th Cir. 1992). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| David Bateman v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Everett N. Dobson & Sons, Inc., Party-In-Interest green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| James N. And Betty G. Bowen v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for First Republicbank--El Paso green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Langley v. Federal Deposit Insurance green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.