12 C.F.R. § 7.4009
[Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 2006–2012 · leading case: Poskin v. TD Banknorth, N.A., 687 F. Supp. 2d 530 (W.D. Pa. 2009).
Poskin v. TD Banknorth, N.A., 687 F. Supp. 2d 530 (W.D. Pa. 2009). “12 C.F.R. § 7.4009 (c)(2) (“State laws on the following subjects are not inconsistent with the powers of national banks and apply to national banks to the extent that they only incidentally affect the exercise of national bank powers: .”
Mississippi Dep't of Revenue v. Pikco Fin., Inc., 97 So. 3d 1203 (Miss. 2012). “” 12 CFR § 7.4009 (c)(2) (repealed July 21, 2011).”
Young v. Wells Fargo & Co., 671 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (S.D. Iowa 2009). “Similarly, 12 C.F.R. § 7.4009 , the OCC regulation that governs with respect to any national bank power or aspect of a national bank's operations that is not covered by another OCC regulation specifically addressing the applicability of state law, provides that state laws that…”
Mwantembe v. TD Bank, N.A., 669 F. Supp. 2d 545 (E.D. Pa. 2009). “Conflict Preemption Unlike the OCC regulation at issue in Cuomo , which was held to exceed the OCC’s authority under the NBA, there is no contention that the OCC regulations implicated in this case exceed Congressional authority.”
SPGGC, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 408 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D. Conn. 2006). “” 12 C.F.R. § 7.4009 (b) (2004). SPGGC contends that the CGCL, in regulating expiration dates and fees associated with gift cards, conflicts with federal law in several major ways: (1) federal law allows national banks to charge non-interest fees; (2) federal law allows national…”
Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 730 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “Additionally, the trial record is devoid of any credible evidence demonstrating that the state-law claims asserted in this action would impose more than an incidental effect on the exercise of Wells Fargo’s deposit-taking powers or — • as covered by 12 C.F.R. 7.4009 — any other…”
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Ebro Foods, Inc., 948 N.E.2d 685 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “” 12 C.F.R. §7.4009 (b) (2010). For the reasons that follow, we reverse the dismissal of Bank of America’s complaint and remand for further proceedings.”
James v. Fed. Reserve Bank of New York, 471 F. Supp. 2d 226 (E.D.N.Y 2007). “12 C.F.R. § 7.4009 (2004) (declaring that national banks are subject to state laws “not inconsistent” with national banks’ powers, “to the extent that [those laws] only incidentally affect the exercise of national bank powers.”
Montgomery v. Bank of Am. Corp., 515 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (C.D. Cal. 2007). “12 C.F.R. § 7.4009 (“State laws on the following subjects are not inconsistent with the powers of national banks and apply to national banks to the extent that they only incidentally affect the exercise of national bank powers .”
Charter One Mortg. Corp. v. Condra, 847 N.E.2d 207 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “In its brief, Charter One also refers to 12 C.F.R. § 7.4009 (b), which provides, in relevant part: "Except where made applicable by Federal law, state laws that obstruct, impair, or condition a national bank's ability to fully exercise its powers to conduct activities authorized…”
Bank of Am. v. Ebro Foods (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “” 12 C.F.R. §7.4009 (b) (2010). For the reasons that follow, we reverse the dismissal of Bank of America’s complaint and remand for further proceedings.”
Sheinkin v. Simon Prop. Grp., Inc., 33 Misc. 3d 287 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011). “(12 CFR 7.4009.) The class action complaint in this matter alleges causes of action that are predicated on state law of general applicability.”
— 12 C.F.R. § 7.4009(c) — 1 case
Charter One Mortg. Corp. v. Condra, 847 N.E.2d 207 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “In its brief, Charter One also refers to 12 C.F.R. § 7.4009 (b), which provides, in relevant part: "Except where made applicable by Federal law, state laws that obstruct, impair, or condition a national bank's ability to fully exercise its powers to conduct activities authorized…”
— 12 C.F.R. § 7.4009(c)(2) — 1 case
Mississippi Dep't of Revenue v. Pikco Fin., Inc., 97 So. 3d 1203 (Miss. 2012). “” 12 CFR § 7.4009 (c)(2) (repealed July 21, 2011).”
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.