Legal Opinion
National Australia Bank v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided March 25, 2003No. 99-690CPublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRUGGINK, Judge.
Pending in this Winstar-related1 tax benefit case are plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment and defendant’s cross-motion *783for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. Oral argument is deemed unnecessary. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
FACTS2
During the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (“FHLBB”) and the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation (“FSLIC”) were…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- United States v. Winstar Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Sinking-Fund CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Bowen v. Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security EntrapmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Union Pacific Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Centex Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- National Australia Bank v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Rochester v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2003
- Austin v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
- Threshold Technologies, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.