Slattery v. U.S.

2 Citing cases

  1. Slattery v. Roth

    710 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 2 times

    We previously affirmed a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims finding that the government was liable for the FDIC's breach of contract, and awarding $276 million in “lost value” damages. Slattery v. United States, 583 F.3d 800, 815–18 (Fed.Cir.2009) (“Slattery I ”), vacated and reh'g en banc granted,369 Fed.Appx. 142 (Fed.Cir.2010), reinstated as modified on reh'g en banc,635 F.3d 1298 (Fed.Cir.2011) (en banc). On remand, the Court of Federal Claims dealt with two distinct questions raised by two distinct parties.

  2. Slattery v. U.S.

    635 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Observing that "the FDIC does not receive funding through congressional appropriation. There is no provision within the FDIC's enabling statute authorizing the appropriation of funds to the Deposit Insurance Fund ('DIF'), the fund the FDIC uses to perform its insurance and regulatory functions. Simply put, the FDIC is a self-funded entity."

    (b) What is the appropriate standard for determining whether an entity is a nonappropriated fund instrumentality?Slattery v. United States, 369 Fed.Appx. 142 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Order). The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has participated in this rehearing as amicus curiae and has filed briefs and presented argument.