Legal Opinion

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Hurwitz

District Court, S.D. Texas

Decided August 23, 2005No. CIV.A. H-95-3956PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion on Sanctions

HUGHES, District Judge.

1. Introduction.

This is a cautionary tale where the emperor has new clothes — a bandit’s mask. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation sought to hold Charles Hurwitz individually responsible for all losses at United Savings, even though he had no obligation to the thrift or the government. Unable to focus its claims and unwilling to disclose its records in this suit — one that it brought — the FDIC surreptitiously paid another agency to bring a parallel administrative claim against Hurwitz, several companies, and other people. Later — much later —…

2Cases cited47 opinions

  1. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Melkonyan v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
  5. Roadway Express, Inc. v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980

42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v. CammarataDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2010
  2. Federal Deposit Insurance v. Maxxam, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2008
  3. In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & Erisa Lit.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2011
  4. Lopez v. KempthorneDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2010
  5. Smith v. AMERICAN FOUNDERS FINANCIAL, CORP.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2007

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API