Spa Flying Serv., Inc. v. United States, 724 F.2d 95 (8th Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Spa Flying Serv., Inc. v. United States, 724 F.2d 95 (8th Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“he act unambiguously limits its protection to customers and small partnerships.”
16 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jodi Hohman v. Maurice Eadie (ca6, 2018-07-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Jodi Hohman v. Maurice Eadie
6th Cir. · 2018 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
he act unambiguously limits its protection to customers and small partnerships.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Inspector General of the United States Department of Agriculture v. Great Lakes Bancorp
E.D. Mich. · 1993 · confidence medium
Bank v. United States, 771 F.2d 73, 75 (3d Cir.1985), Spa Flying Service, Inc. v. United States, 724 F.2d 95, 96 (8th Cir.1984), see also H.R.Rep.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Collins v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
N.D. Ill. · 1990 · confidence medium
Pittsburgh National Bank v. United States, 771 F.2d 73, 75-76 (3rd Cir.1985); Spa Flying Service, Inc. v. United States, 724 F.2d 95, 96 (8th Cir.1984); United States v. Theron, 116 F.R.D. 58, 62 (D.Kan.1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Whitty
D. Me. · 1988 · confidence medium
See 12 U.S.C. § 3401 (4); Pittsburgh National Bank v. United States, 771 F.2d 73, 75 (3d Cir.1985); Spa Flying Service, Inc. v. United States, 724 F.2d 95, 96 (8th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Duncan v. Belcher
4th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
See Pittsburgh National Bank v. United States, 771 F.2d 73, 75 (3 Cir.1985) (holding that a corporation was not a "customer" of a bank); Spa Flying Service, Inc. v. United States, 724 F.2d 95, 96 (8 Cir.1984); see also Donovan v. National Bank of Alaska, 696 F.2d 678, 683 (9 Cir.1983) (observing that records of employee benefit plans were not records of "customers").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Duncan v. Belcher
4th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
See Pittsburgh National Bank v. United States, 771 F.2d 73, 75 (3 Cir.1985) (holding that a corporation was not a “customer” of a bank); Spa Flying Service, Inc. v. United States, 724 F.2d 95, 96 (8 Cir.1984); see also Donovan v. National Bank of Alaska, 696 F.2d 678, 683 (9 Cir.1983) (observing that records of employee benefit plans were not records of “customers”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. A Residence Located at 218 Third Street, New Glarus, Wisconsin, Appeal of David R. Lewallen. (Two Cases) United States of America v. One Safe Deposit Box Located at the Bank of Shorewood Hills, 810 Shorewood Blvd., Madison, Wisconsin
3rd Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
No. 1383, at 33-34, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 9273, 9305-9306; United States v. Frazin, 780 F.2d 1461, 1465 (9th Cir.1986); Spa Flying Service, Inc. v. United States, 724 F.2d 95, 96 (8th Cir.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. A Residence Located at 218 Third Street
7th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
News 9273, 9305-9306; United States v. Frazin, 780 F.2d 1461, 1465 (9th Cir.1986); Spa Flying Service, Inc. v. United States, 724 F.2d 95, 96 (8th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited "see" Manufacturas International, Ltda. v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.
E.D.N.Y · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
O’Brien, Inc., 467 U.S. 735, 745 , 104 S.Ct. 2720, 2727 , 81 L.Ed.2d 615 (1984) (citations omitted); see Spa Flying Serv., Inc. v. United States, 724 F.2d 95 , 96 (8th Cir.1984) (corporation is not a customer since it is not enumerated in definition of “person” in the Act); Pittsburgh Nat’l Bank v. United States, 771 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir.1985) (same).
discussed Cited "see" Pittsburgh National Bank v. United States
3rd Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Spa Flying Service, Inc. v. United States, 724 F.2d 95, 96 (8th Cir.1984) (corporation not a “customer;” therefore, Act’s authorization requirements inapplicable to corporate entities); Donovan v. National Bank, 696 F.2d 678, 683 (9th Cir.1983) (Act does not apply to financial records of employee benefit plan).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ridgeley v. Merchants State Bank
N.D. Tex. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Spa Flying Service v. United States, 724 F.2d 95 (8th Cir.1984) (because “corporation” is not specifically enumerated in definition of “person” in § 3401(4), it is excluded from definition of person); Pittsburgh National Bank v. United States, 771 F.2d 73 (3rd Cir.1985) (corporation not “customer” within scope of Act because only individuals and small partnerships are “customers” as defined by § 3401(5).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Theron
D. Kan. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Spa Flying Service, Inc. v. United States, 724 F.2d 95 (8th Cir.1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Spa Flying Service, Inc. And Jess P. Kimball
v.
United States of America, J. Lynn Helms, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, Joseph A. Kovarik, Regional Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, John E. Hemmert, Jr., Chief, Little Rock Gado--Federal Aviation Administration, James W. Butler, Inspector, Federal Aviation Administration
83-2106.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jan 5, 1984.
724 F.2d 95

724 F.2d 95

SPA FLYING SERVICE, INC. and Jess P. Kimball, Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, J. Lynn Helms, Administrator,
Federal Aviation Administration, Joseph A. Kovarik, Regional
Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, John E. Hemmert,
Jr., Chief, Little Rock GADO--Federal Aviation
Administration, James W. Butler, Inspector, Federal Aviation
Administration, Appellees.

No. 83-2106.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 30, 1983.
Decided Jan. 5, 1984.

Paul R. Bosson, Hot Springs, Ark., for appellants.

W. Asa Hutchinson, U.S. Atty., Larry R. McCord, Asst. U.S. Atty., Fort Smith, Ark., for appellees.

Before HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and John R. GIBSON and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Spa Flying Service, Inc. ("Spa") appeals from dismissal with prejudice of its complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The Federal Aviation Administration had subpoenaed Spa's financial records from its bank. Suing under the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, 12 U.S.C. Sec. 3401 et seq., Spa claimed protection from such governmental intrusion. The district court found, however, that the Act does not protect corporations. The single issue stated on appeal is whether the Act applies to corporations. We affirm.

2

The Act requires that before financial institutions disclose their customers' records to the government, a proper administrative subpoena must reasonably describe the records and the customer must authorize disclosure. 12 U.S.C. Sec. 3402. Legislative history of the Act suggests that this provision mediates between society's interest in law enforcement and customers' interest in privacy. 1978 U.S.Code, Cong. & Ad.News, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., 9305.

3

The Act's definitions preclude protection of corporate financial records. The "Customer" who must authorize disclosure is "any person or authorized representative of that person who utilized or is utilizing any service of a financial institution * * *." 12 U.S.C. Sec. 3401(5). "Person" means "an individual or partnership of 5 or fewer individuals." 12 U.S.C. Sec. 3401(4) (emphasis added). Thus, the Act unambiguously limits its protection to customers and small partnerships. In response, Spa observes that the presumption governing definitions in the United States Code provides that "person" includes corporations unless the context of the Act requires otherwise. 1 U.S.C. Sec. 1. In this case, however, the negative inference arising from the Act's definitions is unmistakable: corporations are excluded because they are not specifically enumerated.

4

Affirmed.