# Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in Its Corporate Capacity v. Gus S. Mijalis, and Gus S. Mijalis

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 2, 1994 · 15 F.3d 1314

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486385

## Case

- **Full name:** FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, in Its Corporate Capacity, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. Gus S. MIJALIS, Et Al., Defendants, and Gus S. Mijalis, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 2, 1994
- **Citations:** 15 F.3d 1314; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 9581
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** King, Demoss
- **Cited by:** 298 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/9486385

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “claims made” policies “are commonly used as professional liability insurance because malpractice by a professional *580 such as a doctor or an architect may not lead to the assertion of a claim until years after expiration of the actual insurance policy ... [a…
- holding that, to preserve error for appeal, “the litigant must press and not merely intimate the argument during the proceedings before the district court. If an argument is not raised to such a degree that the district court has an opportunity to rule on it, [the appellate co…
- holding persuasive FDIC’s argument concerning inadmissibility of evidence of post-closing damages in which FDIC conceded that defendants could challenge FDIC’s evidence regarding the salvage value of unliquidated collateral and thereby attack the damages figure recommended by …
- holding that party wishing to preserve argument for appeal “must press and not merely intimate the argument during the proceedings” below, allowing it to be raised “to such a degree that the district court has an opportunity to rule on it”

## Opinion text

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
May 2, 1994
PER CURIAM:
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby denied.
The FDIC asks for clarification regarding our holding in part III.B of our opinion. We held only that the district court committed no reversible error in excluding the defendant directors’ evidence regarding the post-closing conduct of the FDIC in protecting the failed bank’s assets. We noted that the district court admitted other evidence offered by the defendant directors to counter the FDIC’s proof of the element of proximate cause, such as evidence of changes in the tax laws, declining collateral values, and general economic deterioration. The FDIC did not challenge the district court’s evidentiary rulings on these issues, and we express no opinion on the propriety of those evidentiary rulings.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486385. Public record. Not legal advice.