C.F.R. » Title 12 » CHAPTER II—FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM › SUBCHAPTER A—BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM › PART 265—RULES REGARDING DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY › Subpart A—General Provisions

12 C.F.R. § 265.2

Delegation of functions generally

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Board has determined to delegate authority to exercise the functions described in this part.

(b) The Chair of the Board shall assign responsibility for performing such delegated functions.

(c) Where a delegatee must act with the concurrence of a Board employee, or in consultation with a Board employee, that Board employee may subdelegate his or her authority to concur or be consulted on the delegated action to an employee within the same division or office.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1973–1983 · leading case: Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 561 (1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 561 (1978). · cites it 2× “); 12 CFR § 265.2 (f) (7) (1977). Worthen, accordingly, was advised by staff employees of the Federal Reserve System that they would not recommend approval of the plan by the System's Board of Governors.”
Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys. v. First Lincolnwood Corp., 439 U.S. 234 (1978). · cites it 2× “610 (1976); see 12 CFR § 265.2 (f) (22) (vii) (1978). Moreover, Congress has been made aware of this practice, [13] yet four times has "revisited the Act and left the practice untouched.”
Lee Constr. Co. v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Richmond, 558 F. Supp. 165 (D. Md. 1982). · cites it 2× “” 12 C.F.R. § 265.2 (f)(38) (1981). The Board's Rules of Procedure, 12 C.”
Memphis Trust Co. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 584 F.2d 921 (6th Cir. 1978). “12 C.F.R. § 265.2 (1977). Therefore, the Secretary’s letter of December 1, 1975, stating the Board’s general policy in light of Tri-State Bancorporation, supra, and his letter to the bank’s president on December 19, 1975, were not Board “orders” within the meaning of the Act,…”
Grandview Bank & Trust Co. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 550 F.2d 415 (8th Cir. 1977). “See 12 CFR § 265.2 (a)(3)(i)(a). Since we affirm the Board’s order we need not discuss the 91-day rule issue raised by Bancshares.”
Paul M. Nehring v. First Dekalb Bancshares, Inc., 692 F.2d 1138 (1st Cir. 1982). “The district court held that this allegation did not state a claim on which relief may be granted.”
Gravois Bank v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 478 F.2d 546 (8th Cir. 1973). “12 C.F.R. § 265.2 (f)(22). The Reserve Bank, in turn, pursuant to 12 U.”
Jolene Gustafson v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 717 F.2d 242 (5th Cir. 1983). “See 12 C.F.R. § 265.2 (f) (1982) (delegating to the federal reserve banks the authority to initially approve bank holding company applications).”
Bankamerica Corp. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 596 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir. 1979). “See 12 C.F.R. § 265.2 (f)(20)(ii). As news of the Decimus application spread, other competitors protested the proposed expansion of its activities into their areas, either directly or through various Congressmen and Senators.”
12 C.F.R. § 265.2(f): 1 case
Paul M. Nehring v. First Dekalb Bancshares, Inc., 692 F.2d 1138 (1st Cir. 1982). “The district court held that this allegation did not state a claim on which relief may be granted.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.