28 U.S.C. § 1823
Repealed. Pub. L. 91–563, § 5(a), Dec. 19, 1970, 84 Stat. 1478]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1980–2016 · leading case: Davis v. Bolger, 496 F. Supp. 559 (D.D.C. 1980).
Davis v. Bolger, 496 F. Supp. 559 (D.D.C. 1980). “( 28 U.S.C. § 1823 ), but did not provide for court leave for government employees testifying on behalf of state or local governments.”
Waldron v. Fed. Deposit Ins. (In re Venture Fin. Grp., Inc.), 558 B.R. 386 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2016). “” This Court previously rejected FDIC-R’s arguments based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1823 (e) and the D’Oench Dume Doctrine in its ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and in the Order on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (the “Summary Judgment Order”).”
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.