McKee & Co., a P'ship v. First Nat'l Bank of San Diego, a Nat'l Banking Ass'n, 397 F.2d 248 (1st Cir. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
McKee & Co., a P'ship v. First Nat'l Bank of San Diego, a Nat'l Banking Ass'n, 397 F.2d 248 (1st Cir. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Daley v. Farm Credit Administration (mnd, 1978-08-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Daley v. Farm Credit Administration
D. Minnesota · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See McKee & Co. v. First Nat’l Bank of San Diego, 265 F.Supp. 1, 5 (S.D.Cal.1967), aff’d, 397 F.2d 248 (9th Cir. 1968).
cited Cited "see" Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Movement, Inc. v. City of Chicago
N.D. Ill. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See McKee & Company v. First National Bank of San Diego (9 Cir. 1968), 397 F.2d 248 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Country National Bank v. Mayer
E.D. Cal. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
The Supreme Court has held that “national banks are subject to state laws, unless those laws infringe the national banking laws or impose an undue burden on the performance of the banks’ functions.” Anderson Nat’l Bank v. Luckett, 321 U.S. 233, 248 , 64 S.Ct. 599, 607 , 88 L.Ed. 692 (1944); see also McKee & Co. v. First Nat’l Bank of San Diego, 265 F.Supp. 1, 5 (S.D.Cal.1967), aff'd, 397 F.2d 248 (9th Cir.1968).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Brennan v. Minneapolis Society for the Blind, Inc.
Minn. · 1979 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., McKee & Company v. First National Bank of San Diego, 265 F.Supp. 1, 8 (S.D.Cal.1967), affirmed 397 F.2d 248 (9 Cir. 1968); The People v. Ittner, 165 Ill.App. 360 (1911).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
McKEE & COMPANY, a Partnership, Appellant,
v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SAN DIEGO, a National Banking Association, Appellee
22065.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Jun 21, 1968.
397 F.2d 248
Thomas R. Mitchell (argued), of Hervey & Mitchell, San Diego, Cal., for appellant., Harry Hargreaves (argued), of Procopio Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, San Diego, Cal., for appellee.
Chambers, Ely, Byrne.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The judgment is affirmed. The question of denying an injunction is moot. This is for the reason that all of the events sought to be enjoined have now occurred.

Our judgment is without prejudice to any new action claiming damage occurring subsequent to the dismissal.

The parties shall bear their own costs.