Legal Opinion
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Smith (In Re Smith)
District Court, N.D. Texas
Decided December 5, 1991No. Civ. A. Nos. CA3-90-2488-D, CA3-90-2489-D, Bankruptcy Nos. 387-35881-SAF-7, 387-36695-SAF-7, Adv. Nos. 388-3278, 388-3390PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FITZWATER, District Judge:
These appeals from judgments of the bankruptcy court holding two debts nondis-chargeable on the basis of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) present the question whether the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) may invoke the D’Oench, Duhme 1 estoppel rule to satisfy the reliance element of a nondischargeability claim. Concluding the D’Oench, Duhme rule is not a surrogate for proof of actual reliance, the court reverses the judgments and remands these adversary proceedings to the bankruptcy court.
I
The facts of these cases are set out at length in a published opinion…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Grogan v. GarnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Harold v. Beighley v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Hernandez (In Re Hernandez)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · 1997
- Yarbrow v. Federal Deposit Insurance (In Re Yarbrow)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- At & T Universal Card Services v. Mercer (In Re Mercer)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Mississippi · 1998
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Smith (In Re Smith)District Court, N.D. Texas · 1993
- Cadle Co. v. McKernan (In Re McKernan)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · 1995
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.