Legal Opinion · Dissent
Prudential Insruance Co. of America v. Allied Tower, Ltd.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided October 26, 1993No. 77834Published
1Dissent
LAVENDER, Vice Chief Justice,
dissenting:
The majority opinion masquerades as an interpretation of federal law. In point of fact, its holding is based on equitable considerations unsubstantiated by either federal case law or statutory law. A careful review reveals that this case is controlled by an established doctrine of law first pronounced in D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. FDIC,1 and subsequently codified at 12 U.S.C. *43§ 1821(d)(9) and § 1823(e). For this reason, I withdraw my support of the majority’s opinion.
The D’Oench doctrine is a federal policy designed to protect FDIC and the public funds…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Langley v. Federal Deposit InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Jacob F. Butcher Jesse A. Barr and Lionel B. Wilde, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Robert L. O'neilCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987
- North Arkansas Medical Center v. BarrettCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.