12 U.S.C. § 78
Repealed. Pub. L. 106–102, title I, § 101(b), Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1341
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases, 1946–1998 · leading case: Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Assn., 479 U.S. 388 (1987).
Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Assn., 479 U.S. 388 (1987). “III); 12 U. S. C. §§ 78 , 377, 378. This contention was rejected by the District Court, a holding that is not before us.”
Nixon v. Adm'r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425 (1977). “Brown specifically noted the validity of § 32 of the Banking Act of 1933, 12 U. S. C. § 78 , which disqualified identifiable members of a groupofficers and employees of underwriting organizationsfrom serving as officers of Federal Reserve banks, 381 U.”
United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965). “194 , as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 78 (1964 ed.), forbade any partner or employee of a firm primarily engaged in underwriting securities from being a director of a national bank.”
Jt. Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951). “709 , 12 U. S. C. § 78 . [21] This Court has declared the courts cannot supervise departmental action in discharge for inefficient rating, Keim v.”
Sec. Indus. Ass'n v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 468 U.S. 207 (1984). “This reading of the statute is further supported by the Board’s longstanding interpretation of identical language found in §32 of the Glass-Steagall Act, 12 U. S. C. §78 . That section prohibits interlocking management or employment between banks and any entity “primarily…”
Inv. Co. Inst. v. Camp, 401 U.S. 617 (1971). “" And § 32, 12 U. S. C. § 78 , provides that no officer, director, or employee of a bank in the Federal Reserve System may serve at the same time as officer, director, or employee of an association primarily engaged in the activity described in § 20.”
Inv. Co. Inst. v. Camp, 274 F. Supp. 624 (D.D.C. 1967). “7, and adding 12 U.S.C. §§ 78 , 377 and 378. Section 24, paragraph Seventh, has been noted above.”
Citicorp Int'l Trading Co. v. W. Oil & Refining Co., 790 F. Supp. 428 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). “The Zanders Did not State a Claim for Fraudulent Enforcement of the Note The Zanders also claim that CITC may not enforce the Note because it is a “knowingly illegal contract” under 12 U.S.C. § 78 . That provision of the United States Code provides that: No officer, director, or…”
Bellsouth Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., At&t Corp., Intervenors, 144 F.3d 58 (D.C. Cir. 1998). “Indeed the Supreme Court in Brown strongly suggested that line-of-business restrictions pose no bill of attainder concerns, distinguishing the statute at issue there, which barred Communists from high office in labor unions, from § 32 of the Banking Act of 1933 (now codified at…”
Sec. Indus. Ass'n v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., & Bankamerica Corp., Intervenor, 716 F.2d 92 (2d Cir. 1984). “Section 32’s list of prohibited activities is precisely that found in § 20.”
United States v. Arthur Nasser, United States of Am. v. Richard W. Hauff, 476 F.2d 1111 (7th Cir. 1973). “It happened, also, that in Brown the Court explained why § 32 of the Banking Act of 1933, 12 U.S.C. § 78 , is not a bill of attainder, although it may be said to impose a restriction upon those who fulfill certain specifications, as in the case now before us.”
Communist Party of the United States of Am. v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 223 F.2d 531 (D.C. Cir. 1955). “194 (1933), as amended, 12 U.S.C.A. § 78 . . 48 Stat. 1066 (1934), as amended, 47 U.”
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.