Grossnickle v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “[t]he problem, however, is that the receivership faces a tax claim relating to alleged federal financial assistance received by Franklin that dwarfs the receivership surplus”
• noting that “real capital ... unlike goodwill, could be used to invest in real interest earning assets and would not be a drag on earnings like goodwill”
• finding that Plaintiffs had offered “ample evidence” demonstrating that the “capital problems” cited by Defendant, “could have been managed had Franklin had the capital cushion that goodwill provided”
• rejecting a claim that Bank of America would have expended $110 million to purchase $285 million in goodwill
• describing the court’s inability to make damaged parties whole due to the prohibition on the award of prejudgment interest
• because award of expectancy damages requires showing that passage of FIRREA was substantial factor in thrift’s demise, plaintiff who claims restitution and also shows passage of FIRREA was substantial factor in thrift’s demise will prevail on the claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).