12 U.S.C. § 4007
Effect on State law
Except as provided in subsection (a), this chapter and regulations prescribed under this chapter shall supersede any provision of the law of any State, including the Uniform Commercial Code as in effect in such State, which is inconsistent with this chapter or such regulations.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2023 · leading case: Aresty Int'l Law Firm, P.C. v. Citibank, N.A., 677 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2012).
Aresty Int'l Law Firm, P.C. v. Citibank, N.A., 677 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2012). “The EFAA (which, again, is the source of statutory authority for Regulation CC), provides at 12 U.S.C. § 4007 (b) that its terms and regulations “shall supersede any provision of the law of any State, including the Uniform Commercial Code as in effect in such State, which is…”
First Nat'l Bank of Chicago, F/k/a Nbd Bank, Cross-Appellee v. Stand. Bank & Trust, 172 F.3d 472 (1st Cir. 1999). “” 12 U.S.C. § 4007 (b). 5 .This portion of the regulation only deals with when returned checks are dispatched.”
Law Offices of K.C. Okoli, P.C. v. BNB Bank, N.A., 481 F. App'x 622 (2d Cir. 2012). “Still, we note that the district court’s non-precedential opinion overlooks language in 12 U.S.C. § 4007 (a) exempting from federal preemption those state laws that require banks to make funds available earlier than the EFAA mandates.”
Essex Constr. Corp. v. Indus. Bank of Washington, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 416 (D. Maryland 1995). “3 See also 12 U.S.C. § 4007 (b) (preserving state provisions not inconsistent with EFAA).”
Beffa v. Bank of the West, 152 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 1998). “Only state laws that establish different timing or disclosure requirements than EFAA or otherwise directly conflict with EFAA face preemption. Congress expressed no desire to preempt state laws or causes of action that supplement, rather than contradict, EFAA.”
Drury v. Horizon Sav. Bank, F.S.B., 762 F. Supp. 235 (N.D. Ill. 1991). “12 U.S.C. § 4007 allows this provision of the Act to be superseded by state law.”
Lopez v. City of New York, 152 Misc. 2d 817 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1991). “10 [c] [1] [iv]; see, UCC 4-213 [5]; 12 USC § 4007 [b]). The Expedited Funds Availability Act made the funds available long before the notice of the stopped payment could have been received.”
Bank of Am., N.A., F/K/A Nationsbank, N.A. v. First Nat'l Bank & Bancinsure, Inc. (Tex. App. 2007). “12 U.S.C. § 4007 (2000); 12 C.F.R. § 229.”
Cara Jones v. Google LLC (9th Cir. 2022). “In each of these cases, we have read the statutory term “inconsistent” in the preemption context to refer to contradictory state law requirements, or to requirements that stand as obstacles to federal objectives. We do not see that Congress’s use of the phrase—“inconsistent with…”
Cara Jones v. Google LLC (9th Cir. 2023). “In each of these cases, we have read the statutory term “inconsistent” in the preemption context to refer to contradictory state law requirements, or to requirements that stand as obstacles to federal objectives. We do not see that Congress’s use of the phrase—“inconsistent with…”
Larin v. Bank of Am., N.A., 725 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (S.D. Cal. 2010). “12 U.S.C. § 4007 (b); 12 C.F.R. § 229.20 (b).”
USAA Inv. Mgmt. Co. v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Boston, 906 F. Supp. 770 (D. Conn. 1995). “12 U.S.C. § 4007 (b) (1989); Regulation CC, 12 C.”
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.