Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Landry v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
204 F.3d 1125 (2000)


Facts

Michael Landry (plaintiff) was the senior vice president, chief financial officer, and cashier of First Guaranty Bank in Hammond, Louisiana. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (defendant) notified Landry that the FDIC intended to seek an order removing Landry from his positions at his bank and preventing Landry from participating in the operations of any FDIC member bank in the future. Landry’s case was assigned to a FDIC administrative law judge (ALJ), who could recommend but not personally make factual determinations, legal conclusions, and final decisions for the FDIC. The ALJ held a hearing and recommended that the FDIC issue the order against Landry. Landry disputed the ALJ’s conclusion, and his case was forwarded to the FDIC’s Board of Directors (Board) for a final decision. The Board agreed with the ALJ’s recommendation and issued the order against Landry. Landry petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review, arguing that the FDIC’s appointment of its ALJs violated the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Williams, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Randolph, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.