California Federal Bank v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, because FSLIC—like its successor FDIC—“perform[s] distinctly governmental regulatory functions,” it has not “waive[d] sovereign immunity with respect to the grant of prejudgment interest”
• declining to revisit earlier ruling where intervening en banc decision was not in direct conflict, and where Supreme Court analysis of the same issue controlled
• stating that “[t]he existence of other factors operating in confluence with the breach will not necessarily preclude recovery based on the breach” but that the causal connection between the breach and the damages must be “definitely established”
• rejecting “substantial factor” causation test, stating that while damages must be “definitely established,” the breach need not be the sole cause; the existence of other factors operating in confluence with the breach will not preclude recovery
• “[The] inability to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that profits would have been made but for the breach will therefore preclude recovery on a lost profits theory.”
• “[T]he causal connection between the breach and the [claimed damages] must be ‘definitely established.’... That is not to say that the breach must be the sole factor or sole cause in the [claimed damages].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).