Langley et Ux. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Decided December 1, 1987. Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
Docket 86-489 · 484 U.S. 86 (1987) · Cited 720 times
Holding
A condition to payment of a note, including the truth of an express warranty, is part of the "agreement" to which the requirements of 1823(e) attach.
The Court’s statement of the holding, from the opinion’s syllabus. The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions and is not part of the opinion of the Court. Read the official opinion for authority.
How the Justices voted
Decided 8–0.
Majority · 8
“Concurring” means agreeing with the outcome; any split shown is the Court’s judgment, not each Justice’s reasoning. Source: the Supreme Court Database (Spaeth et al.), Washington University.
Precedents cited
Supreme Court decisions this opinion relies on, ordered by how often it cites each. Cases in our collection link through; others are named.
- D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance · 315 U.S. 447 (1942)
Official text
Read the official opinion (U.S. Reports, govinfo.gov)
Explore from here
Antonin Scalia’s profile · All Supreme Court opinions · The Supreme Court
Source: Supreme Court of the United States, slip opinions (1987). Citation count from the Free Law Project’s CourtListener bulk data. Data last verified 2026-08-15. Informational only; verify against the primary source before relying. Not a consumer report (FCRA).