Dore v. Kleppe

Fifth Circuit

Dore v. Kleppe

526 F.2d 697, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13062

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 30, 1976

DocketNo. 74-1614

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 526 F.2d 697 (Dore v. Kleppe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dore v. Kleppe, 526 F.2d 697, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13062 (5th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, COLEMAN and DYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On motion for petition for rehearing the Government seeks clarification as to admission of evidence on remand regarding the statute of limitations. We believe that our opinion, Dore v. Kleppe, 5 Cir., 1975, 522 F.2d 1369, adequately sets out that, as to plaintiffs outside the Pottharst class who had fully terminated their loans prior to May 1967, the statute of limitations is a bar. Id. at 1373.

As to the second point, concerning those members of the class whose loan agreements included language indicating the SBA position of partial forgiveness, we emphasize that the SBA’s misinterpretation of a statute, even if included in the fine print of a loan agreement, cannot prevent citizens from the full recovery which Congress intended. We repeat and émphasize, a plaintiff could not have actual notice of the SBA action until the time his or her loan was fully terminated. Dore v. Kleppe, supra at 1373.

In all other respects the petition for rehearing is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, COLEMAN and DYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On motion for petition for rehearing the Government seeks clarification as to admission of evidence on remand regarding the statute of limitations. We believe that our opinion, Dore v. Kleppe, 5 Cir., 1975, 522 F.2d 1369, adequately sets out that, as to plaintiffs outside the Pottharst class who had fully terminated their loans prior to May 1967, the statute of limitations is a bar. Id. at 1373.

As to the second point, concerning those members of the class whose loan agreements included language indicating the SBA position of partial forgiveness, we emphasize that the SBA’s misinterpretation of a statute, even if included in the fine print of a loan agreement, cannot prevent citizens from the full recovery which Congress intended. We repeat and émphasize, a plaintiff could not have actual notice of the SBA action until the time his or her loan was fully terminated. Dore v. Kleppe, supra at 1373.

In all other respects the petition for rehearing is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

526 F.2d 697, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dore-v-kleppe-ca5-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack