| Barnett Bank of Marion Cty., N.A. vs. Nelson [1] [2] | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 16, 1996 Decided March 27, 1996 | |
| Full case name | Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. vs. Nelson, Florida Insurance Commissioner, et al. [1] [2] |
| Citations | 517
U.S.
25 (
more) 116 S. Ct. 1103; 134
L. Ed. 2d 237 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Gallagher, 43 F.3d 631 ( 11th Cir. 1995) |
| Holding | |
| The court said states could manage national banks [2] when “doing so does not prevent or significantly interfere with the national bank’s exercise of its powers" which is called conflict preemption. [2] | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Breyer, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| Riege-Neal | |
Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25 (1996), is a Supreme court case that ruled that states could moderate national banks [2] if doing so does not prevent or largely interfere with the national bank's ability to exercise its powers. Later, in 2004, the OCC ( Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) authorized its preemption rule [2] which declared that a national bank's ability to exert its incidental powers which include lending and deposit taking inhibited [2] state laws that obstruct, impair or condition” the business of banking."
Background
Under the National Bank Act, there is a dual banking system in the United States: a federal system based on national bank charters, and a state system formed on state charters. Under the act, a national bank association has the power to do what is necessary for its banking business.
In 1994, amongst a time of national bank expansion across state lines, Congress clearly declared its aim to create a path of freedom from state regulations by adopting the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (Riegle-Neal). This act sought a new preemption standard for national banks in America by administering that national banks were subject to state consumer laws as if they were sections of a state bank except when federal law preempted the application of a state law to a national bank or if the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC) concluded that a state law inclined against national banks. Courts later held that the (Riegle-Neal) act gave the OCC the ability to apply state laws even if they were not prohibited.
A Florida law prohibited Florida-licensed insurance agents from engaging in certain insurance activities [3] such as deposits and engage in any activity incidental to receiving deposits where the agent was related with, [2] among other things, any bank than one which was not a subordinate or associate of a bank capital company, and was located in a city with a populace of less than 5000 people. Florida's Insurance Commissioner directed Barnett to stop selling the insurance at the branch because it was banned under state statue.
See also
References
- ^ a b "Barnett Bank of Marion Cty., N.A. vs. Nelson information". Oyez Project. Retrieved February 6, 2016.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Bishop, Martin. "Regulatory: Federal Bank Preemption". InsideCounsel. Retrieved February 6, 2016.
- ^ "Authority of national banks". ECFR.gov. Retrieved February 6, 2016.
External links
- Text of Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25 (1996) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
| Barnett Bank of Marion Cty., N.A. vs. Nelson [1] [2] | |
|---|---|
| |
| Argued January 16, 1996 Decided March 27, 1996 | |
| Full case name | Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. vs. Nelson, Florida Insurance Commissioner, et al. [1] [2] |
| Citations | 517
U.S.
25 (
more) 116 S. Ct. 1103; 134
L. Ed. 2d 237 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Gallagher, 43 F.3d 631 ( 11th Cir. 1995) |
| Holding | |
| The court said states could manage national banks [2] when “doing so does not prevent or significantly interfere with the national bank’s exercise of its powers" which is called conflict preemption. [2] | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Breyer, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| Riege-Neal | |
Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25 (1996), is a Supreme court case that ruled that states could moderate national banks [2] if doing so does not prevent or largely interfere with the national bank's ability to exercise its powers. Later, in 2004, the OCC ( Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) authorized its preemption rule [2] which declared that a national bank's ability to exert its incidental powers which include lending and deposit taking inhibited [2] state laws that obstruct, impair or condition” the business of banking."
Background
Under the National Bank Act, there is a dual banking system in the United States: a federal system based on national bank charters, and a state system formed on state charters. Under the act, a national bank association has the power to do what is necessary for its banking business.
In 1994, amongst a time of national bank expansion across state lines, Congress clearly declared its aim to create a path of freedom from state regulations by adopting the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (Riegle-Neal). This act sought a new preemption standard for national banks in America by administering that national banks were subject to state consumer laws as if they were sections of a state bank except when federal law preempted the application of a state law to a national bank or if the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC) concluded that a state law inclined against national banks. Courts later held that the (Riegle-Neal) act gave the OCC the ability to apply state laws even if they were not prohibited.
A Florida law prohibited Florida-licensed insurance agents from engaging in certain insurance activities [3] such as deposits and engage in any activity incidental to receiving deposits where the agent was related with, [2] among other things, any bank than one which was not a subordinate or associate of a bank capital company, and was located in a city with a populace of less than 5000 people. Florida's Insurance Commissioner directed Barnett to stop selling the insurance at the branch because it was banned under state statue.
See also
References
- ^ a b "Barnett Bank of Marion Cty., N.A. vs. Nelson information". Oyez Project. Retrieved February 6, 2016.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Bishop, Martin. "Regulatory: Federal Bank Preemption". InsideCounsel. Retrieved February 6, 2016.
- ^ "Authority of national banks". ECFR.gov. Retrieved February 6, 2016.
External links
- Text of Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25 (1996) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)