C.F.R. » Title 12 » CHAPTER I—COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY › PART 4—ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS, AVAILABILITY AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION, CONTRACTING OUTREACH PROGRAM, POST-EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS FOR SENIOR EXAMINERS › Subpart A—Organization and Functions

12 C.F.R. § 4.2

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

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

The OCC is charged with assuring the safety and soundness of, and compliance with laws and regulations, fair access to financial services, and fair treatment of customers by, the institutions and other persons subject to its jurisdiction. The OCC examines, supervises, and regulates national banks, Federal branches and agencies of foreign banks, and Federal savings associations to carry out this mission. The OCC also issues rules and regulations applicable to state savings associations.

[76 FR 43561, July 21, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1963–1981 · leading case: United States v. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. 321 (1963).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. 321 (1963). · cites it 2× “§§ 325 , 481, 483, 1820 (b); 12 CFR § 4.2 . Such examinations are frequent and intensive.”
Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (1973). “§27 ; 12 CFR §4.2 (1972). On the basis of information received from a national bank examiner and from various interested parties, the Comptroller denied the application and notified respondents of his decision through a brief letter, which stated in part: “ [W] e have concluded…”
First Nat'l Bank of Fayetteville v. Smith, 508 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1974). · cites it 5× “Following the submission of the application, a commissioned National Bank Examiner commenced a field examination on behalf of the Comptroller, pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 4.2 (b) (1974). 8 [A. 30 — 47.”
Citizens Nat. Bk., Grant Cty. v. 1ST NAT. BK., MARION, 331 N.E.2d 471 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “[2] 12 C.F.R. § 4.2 (c) (1975) authorizes such preliminary approval, but gives no hint as to the effect of such an approval in cases such as that before us.”
Citizens Nat'l Bank v. First Nat'l Bank, 165 Ind. App. 116 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “12 C.F.R. § 4.2 (c) (1975) authorizes such preliminary approval, but gives no hint as to the effect of such an approval in cases such as that before us.”
Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 505 F. Supp. 412 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). “See, 12 C.F.R. §§ 4.2 , 4.11. While it is certainly true as a matter of law that “the branch in Havana could no more be indebted to the head office than the branch on Pine Street could be indebted to a branch on Broadway,” (Mr.”
City Nat'l Bank v. James E. Smith, Comptroller of Currency of the United States, Meadowbrook Nat'l Bank, 513 F.2d 479 (D.C. Cir. 1975). · cites it 2× “There is no public necessity for a bank at the proposed location. This fact is already well established by a recent public hearing for a state charter only a few blocks from this same location.”
Citizens Bank of Hattiesburg, M. D. Brett & J. W. Mangum v. William B. Camp, Comptroller of the Currency of the United States, 387 F.2d 375 (5th Cir. 1968). “12 C.F.R. 4.2. 3 . Webster Groves Trust Co.”
First Nat'l Bank of Fayetteville v. Smith, 365 F. Supp. 898 (W.D. Ark. 1973). · cites it 2× “The intervenor then discussed the five investigative areas indicated in 12 C.F.R., § 4.2 (b), discussed by plaintiffs in their brief.”
First Nat. Bk. of Shawnee Mis. v. Roeland Pk. St. B. & T. Co., 357 F. Supp. 708 (D. Kan. 1973). “§§ 21-27 ) and the rules and regulations of the Comptroller ( 12 C.F.R. § 4.2 ). After a hearing on February 9 and 10, 1972, when the defendant banks presented oral argument and testimony in opposition to the application, the Comptroller approved the application and notified all…”
Citizens Nat'l Bank of Maplewood v. Saxon, 249 F. Supp. 557 (E.D. Mo. 1965). “12 C.F.R. 4.2 sets out the matters that the Comptroller shall investigate.”
Hanaway v. State, 352 A.2d 715 (N.H. 1976). “§§ 1814 , 1816 (1969); 12 C.F.R. § 4.2 (b) (1975). In the present case the board found that the proposed capital was inadequate and “that the economic conditions at the present time would limit the profitability of the proposal.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
12 C.F.R. § 4.2(b): 2 cases
Pitts v. Camp, 329 F. Supp. 1302 (D.S.C. 1971).
First Nat'l Bank Of Fayetteville v. James E. Smith, 508 F.2d 1371 (1st Cir. 1975).
12 C.F.R. § 4.2(c): 1 case
First Nat'l Bank Of Fayetteville v. James E. Smith, 508 F.2d 1371 (1st Cir. 1975).
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.