Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
12 opinions for “Gilman United Federal Credit Union v. Gunter”
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Hartford Insurancepublic domain
ORDER NORGLE, District Judge. The United States of America has moved to dismiss American Insurance Company’s (“American”) third-party complaint. The United States argues the third-party complaint is not subject to the court’s jurisdiction and it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, a United States Corporation v. Bank of Boulder, a Colorado Corporationpublic domain
McKAY, Circuit Judge. This case involves an action by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) seeking to enforce a letter of credit issued by the defendant Bank of Boulder. I. Facts On June 30, 1982, the Bank of Boulder issued a standby letter of credit to Dominion Bank of Denver in the amount of $27,-000. On September 30, 1983, Dominion Bank of Denver was declared insolve
865 F.2d 1134 7 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 837 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, a United Statescorporation, Plaintiff- Appellant,v.BANK OF BOULDER, a Colorado corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 86-1071. United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit. Sept. 28, 1988.Order Granting Rehearing En BancDec. 5, 1988.
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Eagle Properties, Ltd.public domain
664 F.Supp. 1027 (1985) FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. EAGLE PROPERTIES, LTD., Thomas C. Brown, M.W. Branum, J.L. Davis, Charles R. Perry, Gene Sledge, Clint Hurt and Charles Lawrence. No. MO-84-CA-35. United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Midland-Odessa Division. September 25, 1985. *1028
British Steel PLC v. United Statespublic domain
Opinion Carman, Judge: As noted several times by this Court in previous opinions, a number of actions were consolidated by order of the Court of International Trade on February 4, 1994. See British Steel plc v. United States, 879 F. Supp. 1254, 1261-62 (CIT 1995) (British Steel I), appeals docketed, Nos. 96-1401 to -06 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 1996); British Steel plc v. United Sta
British Steel Plc v. United Statespublic domain
924 F.Supp. 139 (1996) BRITISH STEEL PLC, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. USINAS SIDERURGICAS de MINAS GERAIS, S.A., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. INLAND STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. LTV STEEL CO., INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. LACLEDE STEEL CO., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. LUKENS
British Steel PLC v. United Statespublic domain
879 F.Supp. 1254 (1995) BRITISH STEEL PLC, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. USINAS SIDERURGICAS de MINAS GERAIS, S.A., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. INLAND STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. LTV STEEL CO., INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. LACLEDE STEEL CO., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. LUKEN
Daft v. Advest, Inc.public domain
658 F.3d 583 (2011) L. Alan DAFT; Charles P. Harriman; Harry Canavesi; Antoinette Mancing; Bryce Smith; Mark Smith; Robert O'Leary; Marilyn Neckes; Michael Keim; James Keim, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ADVEST, INC.; Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.; Lou DiMaria; Frank Paparella; Glenn Dittes, Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 08-3212, 10-3151. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Westerngeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp.public domain
AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER KEITH P. ELLISON, District Judge. A number of motions for summary judgment are pending before the Court. Broadly, those motions can be divided into two categories: (1) motions addressing patent invalidity; and (2) motions addressing patent infringement. In this Memorandum and Order, the Court considers first the invalidity motions, including Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgmen
FDIC v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Illinoispublic domain
692 F.Supp. 866 (1988) FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Insurance Company of North America, the American Insurance Company, the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, and Reliance Insurance Company, Defendants. The AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Third-Party Defendant. No. 87 C 8682. Unit
ACCEPTED 04-15-00469-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 9/3
In re Relafen Antitrust Litigationpublic domain
MEMORANDUM YOUNG, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION A. General Considerations This is a nationwide consumer class action. The Court has certified an expanded fifty-state class solely for the purpose of settlement. See Amckem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997) (certifying a class for settlement purposes o