Riggs National Bank of Washington, D.C. v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that Texas concerned only “the competing claims of different jurisdictions for escheat of the same property” and was silent with regard to “the relative rights to custody of abandoned property as between a private holder and a state”
• noting that a takings claim would fail because the abandoned funds to be escheated to the state were not the property of plaintiff
• observing that even “where the amount owing is unliquidated” under § 15-108, an award of prejudgment interest is discretionary under § 15-109
• allocating burden of proof on issue to banks because, among other reasons, facts relevant to issue were “more likely to be within the knowledge of the bank”
• defining a \liquidated debt” as one that \at the time it arose ... was an easily ascertainable sum certain” and \usage” as \what is customary or usual under similar or comparable circumstances.”
• determining prejudgment interest could be awarded for claims under the Unclaimed Property Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).