Legal Opinion
Cain v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided July 26, 2002No. 95-499-CPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DAMICH, Judge.
This Winstar-related case arises from the passage of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (“FIRREA”), Pub.L. No. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183 and the promulgation of regulations that implemented the Act. Plaintiffs David L. Cain et al. (“Individual Plaintiffs”), shareholders of the failed Security Federal Savings Bank (“Security Federal”), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), successor-in-interest to 'Security Federal, both separately claim that Defendant breached a contractual obligation to them when, in the course of implementing…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Karen S. Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exchange ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- United States v. Winstar Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Mid-State Fertilizer Co., Lasley Kimmel, and Maxine Kimmel v. Exchange National Bank of ChicagoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
- Louise J. Hamlet v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1989
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Huntington Promotional & Supply, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
- Franklin Federal Savings Bank v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002
- Cain v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
- Fifth Third Bank of Western Ohio v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2003
- Sterling Savings v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2003
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.