Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. J. William Oldenburg

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that extensive investigation and issuance of cease and desist orders by FSLIC demonstrated the bank’s awareness of the potential loss
• explaining that while the dishonest nature of embezzlement itself demonstrates an embezzler’s intent, a factual question arises “where an individual’s conduct falls somewhere between the two extremes of embezzlement and simple poor judgment”
• citing, inter alia, O’Melveny & Myers v. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79, 87 (1994)
• “[w]here an individual’s conduct falls somewhere between the two extremes of embezzlement and simple poor judgment, intent becomes a question of fact which will generally not be subject to summary judgment.”
• “Manifest intent does not require that the employee actively wish for or desire a particular result; ... Manifest intent to cause a loss may be inferred from an employee’s reckless conduct and other circumstantial evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).