# United States v. State of Michigan

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · August 23, 1988 · 851 F.2d 803

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9477899

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 23, 1988
- **Citations:** 851 F.2d 803; 1988 WL 69054
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wellford
- **Judges:** Martin, Wellford, Nelson
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9477899

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 credi…
- 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.’ ”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9477899. Public record. Not legal advice.