Legal Opinion
National Australia Bank v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided December 29, 2004No. 99-690CPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRUGGINK, Judge.
Pending in this Winstar-related1 tax benefit case are plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. In a prior opinion, National Australia Bank v. United States, 55 Fed.Cl. 782 (2003), we ruled that the government’s action — the retroactive elimination of the deduction for covered-asset losses through the passage of the Guarini legislation in 19932 — breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in its express contract with Michigan National Corporation (“MNC”), plaintiffs predecessor in interest.3
In dispute is…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- United States v. Winstar Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- McAbee Construction, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Commissioner v. DanielsonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1967
- 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
- San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District v. The United States, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- North Star Alaska Housing Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
- National Australia Bank v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
- Keeter Trading Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
- Dobyns v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.