12 U.S.C. § 39

Reservation of rights of associations organized under Act of 1863

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

Nothing in title 62 of the Revised Statutes shall affect any appointments made, acts done, or proceedings had or commenced prior to the third day of June 1864, in or toward the organization of any national banking association under the act of February 25, 1863; but all associations which, on the third day of June 1864, were organized or commenced to be organized under that act, shall enjoy all the rights and privileges granted, and be subject to all the duties, liabilities, and restrictions imposed by title 62 of the Revised Statutes, notwithstanding all the steps prescribed by title 62 of the Revised Statutes for the organization of associations were not pursued, if such associations were duly organized under that act.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2001–2014 · leading case: H.R. ex rel. Reuter v. Medtronic, Inc., 996 F. Supp. 2d 671 (S.D. Ohio 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

H.R. ex rel. Reuter v. Medtronic, Inc., 996 F. Supp. 2d 671 (S.D. Ohio 2014). “§§ 1001-1461 ; and (3) the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 39 . Finally, under the substantial-federal-question doctrine, federal question jurisdiction exists when “the state-law claim necessarily state[s] a federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum…”

Jenkins v. Medtronic, Inc., 984 F. Supp. 2d 873 (W.D. Tenn. 2013). “§§ 1001-1461 ; and (3) the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 39 . Lastly, under the substantial-federal-question doctrine, federal question jurisdiction exists when “the state-law claim necessarily state[s] a federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum…”

Arrington v. Medtronic, Inc., 130 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (W.D. Tenn. 2014). “§§ 1001-1461 ; and (3) the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 39 . Thus, the complete-preemption doctrine is only used in very limited circumstances.”

Dooley v. Medtronic, Inc., 39 F. Supp. 3d 973 (W.D. Tenn. 2014). “§§ 1001-1461 ; and (3) the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 39 . Thus, the complete-preemption doctrine is only used in very limited circumstances.”

Flannick v. First Union Home Equity Bank, 134 F. Supp. 2d 389 (E.D. Pa. 2001). “12 U.S.C. § 39 (emphasis added). When Congress enacted the Revised Statutes, it changed the language of Section 30 of the 1864 Act to the following: Any association may take, receive, reserve and charge on any loan or discount made, or upon any notes, bills of exchange, or other…”

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.