Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1995

Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. First Republicbank Corp.

Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. First Republicbank Corp.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided May 26, 1995 · Barksdale, Politz, Reavley
53 F.3d 1409 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

Stewart M. Weltman, Chicago, IL, for appellant., Scott R. McIntosh and Barbara C. Biddle, Appellate Staff, Civ. Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, DC, for intervenor U.S., Hannah Berkowitz and James W.B. Ben-kard, Davis, Polk & Wardwell, New York City, for Morgan Stanley Co., Eldon Olson, Gen. Counsel, New York City and Jon N. Ekdahl, Chicago, IL, for amici Anderson, et al., James L. Truitt, Hutcheson & Grundy, Dallas, TX, for Morgan Stanley & Co., Robert G. Cohen, Kathryn Oberly, Ernest & Young; Jonathan M. Hoff, Morton Lee Susman, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, New York City, Morton Lee Susman, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, Houston, TX, for Ernst & Young., Ernest E. Figari, Jr., Donald Colleluori, Figiari & Davenport, Dallas, TX, Theodore Gewertz, Robert B. Mazur, and Claire D. Chappell, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York City, for Saloman Bros., Marvin S. Sloman, Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, Dallas, TX, and William Norfolk, Theodore Edelman, and Tariq Maudaya, Sullivan & Cromwell, New York City, for Goldman & Sachs.

Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. First Republicbank Corp.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

We reversed the judgment of the district court with opinion at 997 F.2d 39 (5th Cir. 1993), and the Supreme Court affirmed by an equally divided vote. Our mandate has not been issued to the district court. The Supreme Court has now held § 27A(b) to be an unconstitutional breach of separation of powers. Plant v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995). Under that decision the claims of plaintiff are barred, and the district court would be unable to do more than repeat its prior judgment. Therefore, our opinion and judgment are vacated, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.