Legal Opinion
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyer
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided February 23, 1994No. 92-741PublishedCited by 4,733 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Thomas
In Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), we implied a cause of action for damages against federal agents who allegedly violated the Constitution. Today we are asked to imply a similar cause of action directly against an agency of the Federal Government. Because the logic of Bivens itself does not support such an extension, we decline to take this step.
I
On April 13, 1982, the California Savings and Loan Commissioner seized Fidelity Savings and Loan Association (Fidelity), a California-chartered thrift institution, and appointed the Federal Savings and Loan…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- United States v. SherwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Connecticut National Bank v. GermainSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- United States v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Davis v. PassmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4,733 opinions
- Natalia Makarova v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
- Ziglar v. AbbasiSupreme Court of the United States · 2017
- Cato v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Smith v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2009
- Correctional Services Corp. v. MaleskoSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
4,728 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.