12 U.S.C. § 1848
Judicial review
Any party aggrieved by an order of the Board under this chapter may obtain a review of such order in the United States Court of Appeals within any circuit wherein such party has its principal place of business or in the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, by filing in the court, within thirty days after the entry of the Board’s order, a petition praying that the order of the Board be set aside. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith transmitted to the Board by the clerk of the court, and thereupon the Board shall file in the court the record made before the Board, as provided in section 2112 of title 28. Upon the filing of such petition the court shall have the jurisdiction to affirm, set aside, or modify the order of the Board and to require the Board to take such action with regard to the matter under review as the court deems proper. The findings of the Board as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 102
cases, 1962–2016 · leading case: Whitney Nat'l Bank in Jefferson Par. v. Bank of New Orleans & Trust Co., 379 U.S. 411 (1965).
Whitney Nat'l Bank in Jefferson Par. v. Bank of New Orleans & Trust Co., 379 U.S. 411 (1965). “" The application for judicial review was then filed on June 30, 1962, with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit pursuant to § 9 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, 12 U. S. C. § 1848 (1958 ed.). That case, as we have said, awaits our decision here.”
Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys. v. First Lincolnwood Corp., 439 U.S. 234 (1978). “We have already determined that the Board's "source of strength" requirement *253 is consistent with the language, purpose, and legislative history of the Bank Holding Company Act.”
Synovus Fin. Corp. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., Southtrust Corp., Intervenor, 952 F.2d 426 (D.C. Cir. 1992). “Synovus, the Georgia bank holding company, appealed the Board’s order to this court pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1848 . Syno-vus argues that the Board misinterpreted Georgia law and that the Douglas Amendment requires the Board to reject STNB’s relocation.”
New York Repub. State Comm. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 799 F.3d 1126 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “3 (quoting 12 U.S.C. § 1848 (1970)). We held that the provision’s reference to orders vested the courts of appeals with exclusive jurisdiction to hear challenges to rules as well as orders.”
Ne. Bancorp, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 472 U.S. 159 (1985). “Pursuant to 12 U. S. C. § 1848 , which provides that "[a]ny party aggrieved by an order of the Board" may seek review in a federal court of appeals, and § 1850, which permits prospective competitors to be aggrieved parties under § 1848, Citibank, Northeast, and Union Trust…”
Memphis Trust Co. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 584 F.2d 921 (6th Cir. 1978). “However, section 9 of the Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1848 (1976), provides that a party aggrieved by an order of the Board must file a petition to set aside the order in a court of appeals within 30 days after the entry of the order.”
Sylvester Marx v. Centran Corp., 747 F.2d 1536 (6th Cir. 1984). “Judicial review of the Board’s determination is provided in 12 U.S.C. § 1848 for “[a]ny party aggrieved.”
Inv. Co. Inst. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 551 F.2d 1270 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “The District Court, by order and memorandum opinion dated July 30, 1975, dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that section nine of the Bank Holding Company Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1848 (1970) — which vests jurisdiction in the courts of appeals to…”
Loan Syndications & Trading Ass'n v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 818 F.3d 716 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “The parties pin jurisdiction on the assumption that the Board could have imposed on bank holding companies risk retention obligations similar to those in the joint rule.”
Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U.S. 840 (1976). “§ 706 (scope-of-review provision of Administrative Procedure Act); 12 U. S. C. § 1848 (scope-of-review *863 provision applicable to certain orders of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System); 15 U.”
Marshall & Ilsley Corp. v. John G. Heimann, Comptroller of the Currency of the United States, 652 F.2d 685 (7th Cir. 1981). “They argue that any challenge to a transaction under the BHCA must be presented to the Board, whose decisions may be reviewed only in an appropriate court of appeals pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1848 . Therefore, defendants conclude, and the district court agreed, that the district…”
Indep. Cmty. Bankers of Am. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 195 F.3d 28 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “We have jurisdiction to review under 12 U.S.C. § 1848 (1994). We find the Board’s interpretation and application of the statutes reasonable, and therefore affirm.”
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.