12 U.S.C. § 1831

Separability of certain provisions of this chapter

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 12 CasesGoogle Scholar

The provisions of this chapter limiting the insurance of the deposits of any depositor to a maximum less than the full amount shall be independent and separable from each and all of the provisions of this chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Fasano v. Fed. Reserve Bank, 457 F.3d 274 (3rd Cir. 2006).
Fasano v. Fed. Reserve Bank, 457 F.3d 274 (3rd Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “While no Circuit appears to have directly held that 12 U.S.C. § 1831 j does not permit individual liability, several District Courts have so held, with no contrary authority brought to our attention.”
Jacqueline P. Taylor v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. & Ricki Helfer, Chairman, Fdic, 132 F.3d 753 (D.C. Cir. 1997). “2236 (1991); 12 U.S.C. § 1831 j. The legal import of this is not that disclosures before the amendment are governed by the old statute and those after by the new.”
Jim Hood v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., et a, 737 F.3d 78 (5th Cir. 2013). “§§ 85-86 , and Depository Institutions Deregulation and Mone *84 tary Control Act (“DIDA”), 12 U.S.C. § 1831 (d), preempted some of the state law claims asserted by the State, and (3) it had supplemental jurisdiction to hear the other state claims.”
Richard Oldroyd v. Elmira Sav. Bank, Fsb, 134 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1998). “) as denies a motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration of plaintiff-appellee Richard Ol-droyd’s retaliatory discharge claim brought pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1831 j, the whistle-blower protection provision of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act…”
Patricia Heaton v. Monogram Credit Card Bank of Georgia v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., Movant-Appellant, 297 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2002). “Monogram removed the case to federal district court on the ground that Heaton’s claims under Louisiana law were completely preempted by section 27 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA), 12 U.S.C. § 1831 d. That provision authorizes federally insured “State banks” to charge…”
Schroeder v. Greater New Orleans Fed. Credit Union, 664 F.3d 1016 (5th Cir. 2011). “Schroeder also raised claims under 12 U.S.C. § 1831 ; 31 U.S.C. § 5328 ; and 18 U.”
Mazaika v. Bank One, Columbus, N.A., 653 A.2d 640 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). · cites it 2× “When the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts advised the bank that it had violated state law, the bank filed a declaratory judgment action in federal district court. The district court ruled in favor of the Commonwealth, but the Court of Appeals for the First…”
In Re Cmty. Bank of N. Virginia, 467 F. Supp. 2d 466 (W.D. Pa. 2006). · cites it 2× “§§ 85-86 (“NBA”) and Section 521 of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1831 (d) (“DIDA”) completely preempted state law claims of this sort.”
Grant Thornton v. Off. of Comptroller, Currency, 514 F.3d 1328 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “Under 12 U.S.C. § 1831 m(f)(1) an auditor examining a federally insured depository institution is required to comply with GAAS.”
Rent-Rite Superkegs W., Ltd. v. World Bus. Lenders, LLC (In re Rent-Rite Superkegs W., Ltd.), 603 B.R. 41 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2019). “The Lender now contends that federal statutory law, particularly 12 U.S.C. § 1831 (d), or federal common law, governs the issue whether the Promissory Note is usurious.”
Lawrence Dodge v. Comptroller of the Currency, 744 F.3d 148 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “The misleading quarterly reports over six reporting periods delayed “prompt corrective action” by regulatory officials pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1831 o. Because Dodge caused the Bank to report the challenged contributions as capital, the Bank was able to appear well-capitalized…”
United States ex rel. Kraus v. Wells Fargo & Co., 117 F. Supp. 3d 215 (E.D.N.Y 2015). “§'47; and 12 U.S.C. § 1831 (n)(a)(2)(A)/ which mandates compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”).”
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.