Logourl black
From our private database of 13,000+ case briefs...

United States v. Gaubert

United States Supreme Court
409 U.S. 315 (1991)


Facts

Thomas A. Gaubert (plaintiff) was the chairman and largest shareholder of the Independent American Savings Association (IASA), a Texas chartered federally insured savings and loan. In 1984, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) sought to have IASA merge with Investex Savings, a failing Texas thrift. The FHLBB and the Federal Home Loan Bank-Dallas (FHLB-D) requested that Gaubert sign a neutralization agreement to remove him from IASA’s management and to post a $25 million interest in real property as security for his personal guarantee that IASA’s net worth would exceed regulatory minimums. Gaubert agreed. Federal officials then provided regulatory and financial advice to complete the merger. In the spring of 1986, regulators threatened to close IASA unless its management and board of directors were replaced. IASA’s current management and board agreed to step down and were replaced with persons recommended by FHLB-D. After new management took over, FHLB-D became heavily involved in IASA’s daily management. Although IASA had been financially sound while Gaubert managed it, in 1987, the new directors announced that IASA had a substantial negative net worth. Gaubert filed a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking $100 million in damages for the alleged negligence by FHLBB and FHLB-D officials. The court of appeals found for Gaubert, finding that the federal officials were not exempt from liability under the FTCA under the FTCA’s exception for liability for discretionary functions. The government appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (White, 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, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Concurrence (Scalia, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

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 128,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,000 briefs, keyed to 176 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.