Cluster 109962

Rice v. Norman Williams Co., 458 U.S. 654, 659 , 102 S.Ct. 3294 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1042 (1982); see, e.g., Barnett Bank. 517 U.S. at 31 , 116 S.Ct. 1103 . “[A] national bank ... is an ‘instrumentality] of the Federal government, created for a public purpose, and as such necessarily subject to the paramount authority of the United States.’ ” Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 308 , 99 S.Ct. 540 , 58 L.Ed.2d 534 (1978) (“Marquette ”…

Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 318 (1978) (holding that banks may “export” their home-state interest rates to other states).

Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 315 (1978) (cleaned up).

Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 301 (1978).

Elevate’s discussion of Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 304-05 (1978) and related cases is inapposite.

Marquette, 439 U.S. at 310 (finding that the location in bank’s charter, Nebraska, was its location for purposes of § 85).

Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 318 (1978) (finding that the NBA authorized a national bank based in one state to charge its out-of-state credit card customers a higher interest rate on unpaid balances allowed by its home state).

Bank v. First of Omaha Corp. (1978) 439 U.S. 299, 310 [ 58 L.Ed.2d 534 , 99 S.Ct. 540 ] [national bank located in state named in its organization certificate].) 17 Section 86 of the NBA provides remedies for a knowing violation of section 85: forfeiture of all interest or recovery of double the interest paid. ( 12 U.S.C. § 86 .) Sections 85 and 86 “supersede both the substantive and the remedial provisions of state usury laws and create a federal remedy for overcharges that …

Bank v. First of Omaha Corp. (1978) 439 U.S. 299, 315 [ 58 L.Ed.2d 534 , 99 S.Ct. 540 ].) “The National] B[ank] A[ct] specifically authorizes federally chartered banks to engage in real estate lending. [Citation.] It also provides that banks shall have power ‘[t]o exercise ... all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking.’ ” (Watters, supra, 550 U.S. at p. 7 .) National banks can “do those acts and occupy those relations which are usua…

Bank v. First of Omaha Corp. (1978) 439 U.S. 299, 313, 318 [ 58 L.Ed.2d 534 , 99 S.Ct. 540 ] [holding the NBA permits national banks to charge interest on any loan up to the maximum rate allowed by the single state where the bank is "located," regardless of usury laws in the state where the consumer loan is provided (the "exportation" doctrine)]; Smiley v. Citibank ( South Dakota ), N.A. (1996) 517 U.S. 735, 745-747 [ 135 L.Ed.2d 25 , 116 S.Ct. 1730 ] [deferring to reasonabl…

Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 310, 314-315 , 99 S.Ct. 540 , 58 L.Ed.2d 534 (1978).

Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 315 (1978) (footnote and citation omitted), and “to pro- tect national banks against intrusive regulation by the States,” Bank of Am., 309 F.3d at 561.

Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 315 (1978) (footnote and citation omitted), and “to pro- tect national banks against intrusive regulation by the States,” Bank of Am., 309 F.3d at 561.

Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 315 (1978) (internal quotation omitted).

Bank of Minneapolis v First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 US 299, 318 [1978]; see also, as to “most favored lender doctrine,” Fisher v First Natl.

Corp. , 439 U.S. 299, 313 (1978); see Smiley v. Citibank , 517 U.S. 735, 744 (1996) (holding that late fees were interest under the National Bank Act).

Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 314, 318-19 , 99 S.Ct. 540 , 58 L.Ed.2d 534 (1978); Krispin, 218 F.3d at 922 .

Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 314, 318-19 , 99 S.Ct. 540 , 58 L.Ed.2d 534 (1978); Krispin, 218 F.3d at 922.

Corp., 439 US 299, 313 [1978].) To hold otherwise would permit the local law to “stan[d] as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress” in enacting 12 USC § 371 .

Corp. , 439 US 299, 313 [1978].) To hold otherwise would {** 4 Misc 3d at 158 }permit the local law to "stan[d] as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress" in enacting 12 USC § 371 . ( Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v Nelson , 517 US 25, 31 [1996] [internal quotation marks omitted].) No national bank may be subjected to visitorial powers except as authorized by federal law. ( 12 USC § 484 [a]; § 1813 [g].) Visitori…

Bank v. First of Omaha Corp. (1978) 439 U.S. 299, 318-319 [ 58 L.Ed.2d 534 , 99 S.Ct. 540 ] [noting that section 85 impairs effectiveness of states’ usury laws]).

Corp. , 439 U.S. 299, 308 , 99 S. Ct. 540, 545 (1978).

Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 313-19 (1978).

Bank v. First of Omaha Corp. (1978) 439 U.S. 299, 315 [ 99 S.Ct. 540, 549 , 58 L.Ed.2d 534 ]; accord, Smiley v. Citibank, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 150 ; see Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 1089 ), a system “coextensive with the territorial limits of the United States, and with uniform operation within those limits” (Talbott v. Silver Bow County (1891) 139 U.S. 438, 443 [ 11 S.Ct. 594, 596 , 35 L.Ed. 210 ]).

Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 313 (1978) (national bank may charge interest allowed by its home state even if such interest would not be allowed to bank in borrower's home state).

Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 313-18 (1978).

The Marquette Court recognized that the "exportation" of interest rates from a national bank's "home state" into a foreign state would "significantly impair the ability of the States to enact effective usury laws," but it found that such impairment "has always been implicit in the structure of the National Bank Act since citizens of one State were free to visit a neighboring State to receive credit at foreign interest rates." Id. at 318 , 99 S.Ct. at 550 , 58 L.Ed. 2d at 548…

Although the convenience of modern mail permits Minnesota residents holding Omaha Bank’s [credit cards] to receive loans without visiting Nebraska, credit on the use of their cards is nevertheless similarly extended by Omaha Bank in Nebraska by the bank’s honoring of the sales drafts of participating Minnesota merchants and banks. 439 U.S. at 310-11 , 99 S.Ct. at 546-47 (footnote omitted).

Bank v. First of Omaha Corp., supra, 439 U.S. at p. 315 [ 58 L.Ed.2d at p. 546 ])—“in part,” as it had earlier stated in Tiffany v. National Bank of Missouri (1874) 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 409, 413 [ 21 L.Ed. 862, 864 ] (hereafter sometimes Tiffany), to “provid[e] a currency for the whole country, and in part to create a market for the loans of the General government.” Within this system, “[n]ational banks are instrumentalities of the Federal government, created for a public purp…

Marquette, supra, 439 U.S. at 302-303 , 99 S.Ct. at 542-543 (emphasis supplied).

Marquette National Bank v. First Omaha Service Corp., supra. In Marquette, a party argued that the “exportation” of interest rates from a national bank’s “home state” into a foreign state would “significantly impair the ability of States to enact effective usury laws.” The Supreme Court stated that such impairment “has always been implicit in the structure of the National Bank Act, since citizens of one State were free to visit a neighboring State to receive credit at foreig…

Id. at 314-15, 317-18 , 99 S.Ct. at 548-49, 549-50 .

Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 313-19 (1978); ____ ___________________________ Gavey, 845 F.2d at 521 .

The Marquette court recognized that the “exportation” of interest rates from a national bank’s “home State” (where chartered) into a foreign state would “significantly impair the ability of States to enact effective usury laws,” but it found that such impairment “has always been implicit in the structure of the National Bank Act since citizens of one State were free to visit a neighboring State to receive credit at foreign interest rates.” Marquette, 439 U.S. at 318 , 99 S.C…

To compensate for the reduced interest, Minnesota law permits banks to charge annual fees of up to $15 for the privilege of using a bank credit card. [Id. at 302-03, 99 S. Ct. at 542-43 , 58 L.

Bank v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U. S. 299, 319 (1978).

As the majority recognizes, charging the rate “where the bank was located” meant national banks could “‘export’ the interest rates permitted by the state . . . to out-of- state borrowers, even if the rate charged exceed[ed] the rate permitted by the borrower’s state.” Op. at 8; see Marquette, 439 U.S. at 301 .

See 439 U.S. at 301 , 99 S.Ct. 540 .

See Marquette, 439 U.S. at 313-14 , 99 S.Ct. 540 (recognizing that “the plain language of § 85 provides that the bank may charge ‘on any loan’ the rate ‘allowed’ by the state” in which the bank is located).

See id. at 308 .

See Marquette, 439 U.S. 299, at 304-05 , 99 S.Ct. 540 .

See Marquette Nat'l Bank v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299 (1978); Wiseman v. State Bank Trust, N.A., 313 Ark. 289 , 854 S.W.2d 725 (1993).

See Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. First Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299 , 308 n. 19, 99 S.Ct. 540 , 545 n. 19, 58 L.Ed.2d 534 (1978).

See Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299 , 99 S.Ct. 540 , 58 L.Ed.2d 534 (1978).

See Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299 , 99 S.Ct. 540 , 58 L.Ed.2d 534 (1978).

See The Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis, et al. v. First of Omaha Service Corporation, Minn., 262 N.W.2d 358 (1977), cert. *516 granted, 436 U.S. 916 , 98 S.Ct. 2261 , 56 L.Ed.2d 757 (1978), aff’d., 439 U.S. 299 , 99 S.Ct. 540 , 58 L.Ed.2d 534 (1978).

Id.; see also Marquette Nat’l Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 310-11 , 99 S.Ct. 540, 546-47 , 58 L.Ed.2d 534 (1978).

See also Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299 , 313 n. 26, 99 S.Ct. 540 , 548 n. 26, 58 L.Ed.2d 534, 545 (1978).

For this well-established construction, see Tiffany v. National Bank of Missouri, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 409, 412 , 21 L.Ed 862 (1873); Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 2 Comptroller’s Interpretative Rulings: Changes in Text, 1948-77, §§ 7310, 9510 (1963); 12 C.F.R. § 7.7310 (a) (1988); see also, e.g., Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299 , 99 S.Ct. 540 , 58 L.Ed.2d 534 (1978); Fischer v. First National Bank of Omaha, 548…

Compare Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Corp., 439 U.S. 299 , 99 S.Ct. 540 , 58 L.Ed.2d 534 (1978), in which the question was whether a national bank situated in Nebraska must charge the interest rates set by Minnesota on loans obtained by residents of Minnesota.