Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyer
- Decided
- February 23, 1994
- Docket
- 92-741
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,884 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that “[b]y permitting FSLIC to sue and be sued, Congress effected a ‘broad’ waiver of FSLIC’s immunity from suit” for cognizable claims — Tooke v. City of Mexia (2006)
- recognizing that, in the absence of a statutory definition, statutory terms are construed in accordance with their ordinary or natural meaning — Salman Ranch Ltd. v. United States (2009)
- holding that a plaintiff's FTCA claim must be based on a state-law tort claim and cannot be based on a federal constitutional or statutory claim against the Government — Spotts v. United States (2010)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), we implied a cause of action for damages against federal agents who allegedly violated the Constitution. Today we are asked to imply a similar cause of action directly against an agency of the Federal Government. Because the logic of Bivens itself does not support such an extension, we decline to take this step.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.