U.S. Code » Title 12 » Chapter CHAPTER 22— TYING ARRANGEMENTS

12 U.S.C. § 1977

Limitation of actions; suspension of limitations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 12 CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), any action to enforce any cause of action under this chapter shall be forever barred unless commenced within four years after the cause of action accrued.(2) Whenever any enforcement action is instituted by or on behalf of the United States with respect to any matter which is or could be the subject of a private right of action under this chapter, the running of the statute of limitations in respect of every private right of action arising under this chapter and based in whole or in part on such matter shall be suspended during the pendency of the enforcement action so instituted and for one year thereafter: Provided, That whenever the running of the statute of limitations in respect of a cause of action arising under this chapter is suspended under this paragraph, any action to enforce such cause of action shall be forever barred unless commenced either within the period of suspension or within the four-year period referred to in paragraph (1).(Pub. L. 91–607, title I, § 106(g), Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1768.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1989–2000 · leading case: Idaho First National Bank v. Bliss Valley Foods, Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Idaho First National Bank v. Bliss Valley Foods, Inc. (1992) idaho · cites it 2× “Idaho First's answer stated that "[c]ounterclaimants' claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited to, Idaho Code §§ 5-217 , 5-218, 5-219, 5-224 and 12 U.S.C. § 1977 ." (Emphasis added.) I.R.”
Jackson v. Union National Bank of MacOmb (1989) ilcd · cites it 5× “DECISION The applicable statute of limitations for violations of the Bank Holding Company *894 Act Amendments of 1970 is found at 12 U.S.C. § 1977 . That statute states as follows: Limitations of Actions; Suspension of Limitations 1.”
Phillip M. Kabealo and Charles L. Kabealo v. The Huntington National Bank (1994) ca6 “The district court held that this action was barred by the Act’s four-year statute of limitations, 12 U.S.C. § 1977 (1), rejecting the plaintiffs’ contention that the statute of limitations was tolled under the facts of the case.”
Information Exchange Systems, Inc. v. First Bank National Ass'n (1993) ca8 “In its opinion granting summary judgment to First Bank, the trial court dismissed that claim as barred by the four-year statute of limitations, see 12 U.S.C. § 1977 (1). The trial court rejected Qwix’s argument that First Bank’s refusal to release certain documents amounted to…”
Robert R. Wisdom v. First Midwest Bank (2000) ca8 “See 12 U.S.C. § 1977 (1). Having disposed of the federal law claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state common law fraud claim of Count III and dismissed the complaint.”
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.