18 U.S.C. § 1821
Repealed. Pub. L. 116–260, div. O, title X, § 1002(8), Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 2155]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 61
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1952–2024 · leading case: Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, 843 P.2d 1285 (Colo. 1993).
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, 843 P.2d 1285 (Colo. 1993). “[ 18 U.S.C. § 1821 (e)(12) ] remains neutral regarding such litigation [i.”
Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. 2001). “We recognized that 18 U.S.C. § 1821 (d)(14) expressly confers the six-year limitations only on actions the FDIC brings.”
J. M. Acosta, 27 I. & N. Dec. 420 (BIA 2018). “In that case, the Supreme Court applied the plain language of the statute to find that State prisoners who testified at Federal trials pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus in 18 U.S.C. § 1821 (1988) were entitled to witness fees, rejecting long-standing administrative and…”
Capitol Leasing Co. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 999 F.2d 188 (7th Cir. 1993). “The notices appearing in the Chicago Daily Laio Bulletin comply with 18 U.S.C. § 1821 (d)(3)(B), which instructs the receiver to publish notice to the depository institution’s creditors, and the contested letter of December 17, 1991 meets the requirements of § 1821(d)(3)(C),…”
United States v. Steve Navarro-Vargas, United States of Am. v. Jose Antonio Leon-Jasso, 408 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2005). “§ 666 ; or to pursuing unlawful transportation of dentures, 18 U.S.C. § 1821 ; disruption of zoos, circuses, and rodeos, 18 U.”
Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697 (9th Cir. 1998). “S.C. § 1821 (e), provides for repudiation in subsection 1 and for damages in subsection 3.”
Sunshine Dev., Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., as Liquidating Agent for First Serv. Bank for Sav., 33 F.3d 106 (1st Cir. 1994). “Had the court below correctly understood the interface between the relevant statutory schemes, it would have realized that, because the automatic stay had been dissolved, the appellees were requesting relief of a kind that, 18 U.S.C. § 1821© considered, exceeded the district…”
Oakville Dev. Corp., Tr. of the 10-12 Lopez St. Trust v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 986 F.2d 611 (1st Cir. 1993). “See 18 U.S.C. § 1821 (j) (1988). Oakville took an appeal but did not request a stay of the impending sale (although counsel claims that he circulated notices at the auction, warning prospective bidders that an appeal was pending).”
Green v. Fed. Deposit Ins. (In Re Tamalpais Bancorp), 451 B.R. 6 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “, that the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction to hear Trustee’s claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1821 (d), as based on “well-settled case law” that renders the outcome “absolutely clear.”
Catherine Ulissey, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross v. Alexander Shvartsman, Defendant-Appellant/cross, 61 F.3d 805 (10th Cir. 1995). “Shvartsman’s post-trial motions for new trial or remittitur, the court held the award of damages was fully supported by the evidence and refused to stay the judgment pending this appeal, absent an approved supersedeas bond. The court also rejected Ms.”
United States v. Morgan, Jeffrey, 393 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2004). “1087 , the current version of which is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1821 . The statute generally made it unlawful “to use the mails or any instrumentality of interstate commerce for the purpose of sending or bringing into” any state or territory a denture constructed from a cast not…”
Kareem v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 811 F. Supp. 2d 279 (D.D.C. 2011). “The Court reasoned that Plaintiff “timely filed a claim with the FDIC”; “the FDIC had until July 1, 2009, to make a determination” on Plaintiffs claims, but failed to do so; under 18 U.S.C. § 1821 (d)(6)(B), Plaintiff “had sixty days from July 1, 2009 to file a civil complaint…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(3) — 1 case
Westberg v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. (D.D.C. 2013).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1821(e)(1) — 2 cases
Westberg v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. (D.D.C. 2013).
MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. (D.D.C. 2011).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1821(e)(3)(A) — 1 case
Westberg v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. (D.D.C. 2013).
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.