E. L. A., JR. v. M. F. M.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that officials from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency constituted a new category of defendants for Bivens purposes
• holding that a new defendant category and distinct statutory mandate each indicated a new Bivens context
• noting that “the new-context analysis may consider only Supreme Court decisions approving Bivens actions”
• finding both the new defendant category and distinct statutory mandate to be independent bases for identifying a new context
• explaining that “the legal mandate under which the . . . officials were operating is different from the ones in Bivens, Davis, and Carlson” because plaintiff’s claim “arose from the enforcement of federal banking laws,” which were not at issue in the Bivens triumvirate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).