Legal Opinion · Dissent

First Federal Lincoln Bank v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided March 5, 2008No. 2007-5044, 2007-5048Published

1DissentMayer, Circuit Judge

I dissent from the majority’s reversal of the Court of Federal Claims’ damages award. The trial court made a reasonable and well-supported determination of the damages sustained by First Federal Lincoln Bank (“First Federal”), and the majority offers no persuasive justification for setting it aside. Furthermore, after deciding to jettison the expectancy damages theory upon which this case was tried, the majority precludes First Federal from presenting evidence as to the damages it suffered under the majority’s newly-adopted damages paradigm. This is fundamentally unjust.

I. Standard of Review

Th…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. Glendale Federal Bank, Fsb, Plaintiff-Cross v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
  3. Bluebonnet Savings Bank, F.S.B., Stone Capital, Inc. (Formerly Known as Cfsb Corporation), and James M. Fail v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
  4. Energy Capital Corp. (As General Partner of Energy Capital Partners Limited Partnership) v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
  5. Katz v. CisnerosCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API