Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 28-2-13-19 (2026)

Branch de novo or branch by acquisition; approval of department required; compliance with statutes; exemption from approval requirements

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 19. (a) Subject to subsections (b) and (c), a state bank is entitled to establish one (1) or more branches de novo and one (1) or more branches by acquisition in any location or locations within Indiana.

     (b) A state bank is entitled to establish a branch de novo under this section with the written approval of the department. The location of any branch established under this section may be changed at any time to a location within Indiana when the change of location is authorized by the board of directors of the state bank and approved by the department. A state bank desiring to establish one (1) or more branches de novo under this section must file a written application in the form prescribed by the director. The department may approve or disapprove the application. Before the department approves the application, the state bank must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the department that the applicant state bank will have adequate capital, sound management, and adequate future earnings prospects after the establishment of the branch.

     (c) The investigation of the department relative to any application as required by this section shall be conducted without a public hearing.

     (d) A branch by acquisition may be established under this section only if done in compliance with applicable provisions of IC 28-1-7, IC 28-1-8, or IC 28-3-2.

     (e) The department may establish criteria to exempt a state bank from the approval requirements described in this section.

As added by P.L.265-1985, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.279-1987, SEC.3; P.L.36-1987, SEC.9; P.L.33-1991, SEC.25; P.L.42-1993, SEC.61; P.L.122-1994, SEC.87; P.L.171-1996, SEC.34; P.L.192-1997, SEC.6; P.L.69-2018, SEC.50.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1999–1999 · leading case: Patrick M. McQueen v. Julie L. Williams, 177 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 1999).
Patrick M. McQueen v. Julie L. Williams, 177 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 1999). “See Ind.Code Ann. § 28-2-13-19. Michigan allowed interstate branching, but it required reciprocity before a Michigan state bank could establish a branch in the other state; consequently, a Michigan state bank could not branch into Indiana.”
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.