holding that the statute of limitations provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2415, rather than the state statute of limitations, governed an action brought by the United States on behalf of federal credit unions seeking to recover as damages sales taxes improperly paid by the federal credit unions
How later courts described this case
- holding that the statute of limitations provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2415, rather than the state statute of limitations, governed an action brought by the United States on behalf of federal credit unions seeking to recover as damages sales taxes improperly paid by the federal credit unions
- holding federal credit union federal instrumentality and immune from state taxation because it performs an “important governmental function” and is “extensively regulated” under federal, law
- holding a federal credit union not to be a government actor for Constitutional purposes
- holding that “an action for unjust enrichment is based on a quasi-contract, which is synonymous with a ‘contract implied in law.’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WELLFORD, Circuit Judge,
Dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the denial of the State of Michigan’s petition for rehearing. I do not feel that the issue presented, whether the opinion filed July 8, 1988, should be deemed to be prospective only, has been fully considered by the court. I find it to be a serious and important question that should be addressed by the panel or by the court en banc. I adhere to my previous position that the Michigan four year statute of limitations should apply, and this becomes more important in light of the panel’s refusal to consider the retrospective effect of our decision on the merits, one. which undertook to decide a difficult question of first impression.