12 U.S.C. § 1437

Repealed. Pub. L. 101–73, title VII, § 703(a), Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 415

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 12 CasesGoogle Scholar

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 105 cases, 1966–2011 · leading case: Fid. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. De La Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (1982).
Fid. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. De La Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (1982). · cites it 4× “736 , as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 1437 , the statute which created the federal home loan bank system.”
United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (1991). · cites it 2× “12 U. S. C. § 1437 (a). [4] The FTCA, subject to various exceptions, waives sovereign immunity from suits for negligent or wrongful acts of Government employees.”
United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839 (1996). · cites it 2× “See note following 12 U. S. C. § 1437 , §§ 1441a, 1821. More importantly for the present case, FIRREA also obligated OTS to "prescribe and maintain uniformly applicable capital standards for savings associations" in accord with strict statutory requirements.”
Coit Indep. Jt. Venture v. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins., 489 U.S. 561 (1989). · cites it 2× “736 , 12 U. S. C. § 1437 . See T. Marvell, The Federal Home Loan Bank Board 20 (1969).”
Fid. Fin. Corp. v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, Milton Feinerman, President of the Fed. Home Loan Bank of S.F., 792 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “12 U.S.C. § 1437 . Fidelity was a member institution of the Bank.”
People v. First Am. Corp., 960 N.E.2d 927 (NY 2011). · cites it 4× “[establishing the OTS]; Pub L 101-73, tit IV, § 401, 103 US Stat 183, 354, repealing 12 USC § 1437 [ see 12 USCA § 1437, Historical and Statutory Notes (disbanding the FHLBB)]).”
Biase v. Kaplan, 852 F. Supp. 268 (D.N.J. 1994). · cites it 3× “See 12 U.S.C. § 1437 . However, by the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Reinforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA"), Pub.”
United States v. Robert H. Hopkins, Jr., Morten Hopkins, & John W. Harrell, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “That evidence is sufficient to sustain their convictions under § 371. 8 . These agencies no longer exist.”
Robert D. Rapaport v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, Off. of Thrift Supervision, 59 F.3d 212 (D.C. Cir. 1995). · cites it 2× “183 (August 9, 1989) (FIRREA); see also Historical Note at 12 U.S.C.A. § 1437 (West Supp.1994), it also passed savings provisions stating that their abolition would “not affect the validity of any right, duty, or obligation” of those agencies.”
Transohio Sav. Bank v. Dir., Off. of Thrift Supervision, 967 F.2d 598 (D.C. Cir. 1993). “12 U.S.C. § 1437 note. Because “subsection (a)” does nothing other than abolish FSLIC and the Bank Board, it is hard to see how § 401 could apply to Transohio’s forbearance agreement.”
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F. Supp. 1310 (S.D. Tex. 1994). · cites it 2× “at 354 (see codification note after 12 U.S.C. § 1437 (Supp. I 1989)) of FIRREA.”
Westfed Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 135 (Fed. Cl. 2002). “1770 (1991)); see generally 12 U.S.C. § 1437 (1990). An OTS Supervisory Agent wrote to New Western on November 13, 1989, stating that new capital regulations would go into effect on December 7,1989 and directing any thrift that could not meet the new capital standards to submit…”
— 12 U.S.C. § 1437(b) — 2 cases
United States v. Joseph W. Nowak, 448 F.2d 134 (7th Cir. 1971).
Colonial Sav. Ass'n v. Comm'r, 854 F.2d 1001 (7th Cir. 1988).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.