Federal Deposit Insurance v. Kooyomjian

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “if [the] FDIC no longer holds the primary damage claim” then the claim for recoupment must fail
• holding that claims against the FDIC as receiver failed to satisfy the case or controversy requirement where “[t]he FDIC’s worthlessness determination . . . preclude[d] any relief for [claimants] even i[f] they were successful . . . and obtained favorable judgment”
• examining recoupment in context of negligence claim and quoting Bolduc v. Beal Bank, SSB, 167 F.3d 667, 672 (1st Cir. 1999)
• finding insufficient the allegation that the plaintiffs “must 12 violate the housing laws to remain true to their religious beliefs”
• examining recoupment in context of negligence claim and quoting Bolduc v. Beal Bank, SSB, 167 F.3d 667, 672 (1st Cir. 1999)
• affirming the district court’s dismissal of a negligence claim on the grounds of prudential mootness because “the FDIC’s worthlessness determination . . . precludes any relief for defendants”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).