Legal Opinion
Reich v. Webb
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 18, 1964No. 18457PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KOELSCH, Circuit Judge.
The narrow question before us on this appeal is whether the district court properly refused appellant’s motion to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to Rule 24(a) (2) or (3), F.R.Civ.P. The answer depends upon whether the Federal Home Loan Bank Board has the power to enforce by court action common law fiduciary responsibilities of savings and loan association officers and ■directors. For reasons hereafter appearing, we conclude that the order of the ■district court was correct.
The facts are undisputed. Appellants .are depositors and members of the Beverly Hills…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Phelps Dodge Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Porter v. Warner Holding Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Fahey v. MalloneeSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Robert Blake v. Sant Pallan v. Willie R. Barnes, Commissioner of Corporations of the State of California, Plaintiff-In-Intervention/appellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
- Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties for Stable Economic Growth v. Department of the InteriorCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1996
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Central Savings and Loan Association v. Daniel T. McSweeney Frederick C. StalderCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. AndrusCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1982
- Parks v. PavkovicCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.