Legal Opinion
Royal Bank of Canada v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.
District Court, N.D. Texas
Decided March 22, 1990No. Civ. A. CA4-84-0161-DPublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FITZWATER, District Judge:
The instant motion to dismiss presents questions concerning the application of the D’Oench, Duhme 1 doctrine, and asks the court to decide whether the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) can be liable for punitive damages and attorney’s fees.
I
Plaintiff The Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”) filed this action against a predecessor of First RepublicBank Fort Worth, N.A. (“RepublicBank”) 2 in 1984, alleging claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract. The lawsuit arises from RBC's purchase of a $10 million participation interest in a loan…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- 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
- Harold v. Beighley v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Henry E. McClanahanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Coates v. Heartland Wireless Communications, Inc.District Court, N.D. Texas · 1998
- Senior Unsecured Creditors' Committee of First Republic-Bank Corp. v. Federal Deposit InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1990
- First Heights Bank, FSB v. Gutierrez, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1993
- American Federation of State Employees v. Federal Deposit InsuranceDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1992
- E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Receiver for United National Bank of WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1994
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.