12 U.S.C. § 1831
Separability of certain provisions of this chapter
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).
Klopfenstein v. Fifth Third Bank (S.D. Ohio 2025). “1Plaintiffs also brought claims for: (1) violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act; (2) violation of 12 U.S.C. § 1831 (d); (3) conversion; (4) unjust enrichment under Ohio law; (5) unjust enrichment under Illinois law; (6) unjust enrichment under Tennessee law; (7) unjust…”
William W. Giambrone & Michele L. Giambrone (Tax Ct. 2024). “The letter (1) required the submission of a capital restoration plan meeting assorted statutory and regulatory standards and (2) imposed restrictions set forth in 12 U.S.C. § 1831 and accompanying regulations.”
Tasaka v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (E.D.N.Y 2022). “§§ 241 , 242, 337, 471, 473, 474, 872, 873, 876, 880, 1001, 1021, 1341, 1348, 1957 and 12 U.S.C. § 1831 (n). (Am. Compl. at 2–4, 6, 11, 13.”
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.”
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”).”
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…”
Sawyer v. Bill Me Later, Inc., 23 F. Supp. 3d 1359 (D. Utah 2014). “§§ 1463 (g) (savings banks), 1735f-7 (mortgage lenders), and 1785(g) (credit unions) as other areas of federal regulation of the banking industry added by the DIDA at the same time as § 1831d).”
Jim Hood v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., et a (5th Cir. 2014). “§§ 85–86, and Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary 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.”
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.”
Haug v. PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., 930 F. Supp. 2d 871 (N.D. Ohio 2013). “” 82 In that regard, 12 U.S.C. § 1831 j(e) specifies that for purposes of the statute, “the term ‘Federal banking agency’ means the [Federal Deposit Insurance] Corporation, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the…”
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.”
Griner v. Synovus Bank, 818 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (N.D. Ga. 2011). “See 12 U.S.C. § 1831 (a); Thomas, 575 F.3d at 798 .”
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.