Legal Opinion
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. O'Donnell
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided August 26, 1991No. Civ. A. 90-1034PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FLANNERY, District Judge.
Plaintiff the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) brought this action seeking judgment against eight defendants who allegedly are liable to the FDIC as guarantors of a defaulted promissory note. Each party presently has pending a motion before the Court. As discussed below, the Court will (1) grant the motion of defendant William Tutman for summary judgment; (2) deny the motion of the remaining seven defendants to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) deny the motion of the FDIC for summary judgment.
I. Background
This…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- McGee v. International Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. MoitieSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Dooley v. United Technologies Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 1992
- Alberts v. Tuft (In Re Greater Southeast Community Hospital Corp.)District Court, District of Columbia · 2005
- Material Supply Int'l, Inc. v. Sunmatch Industrial Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1999
- I.A.M. National Pension Fund v. TMR Realty Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 2006
- Evans v. FIRST MOUNT VERNON, ILADistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.