15 U.S.C. § 6714

Expedited and equalized dispute resolution for Federal regulators

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Filing in Court of Appeals

In the case of a regulatory conflict between a State insurance regulator and a Federal regulator regarding insurance issues, including whether a State law, rule, regulation, order, or interpretation regarding any insurance sales or solicitation activity is properly treated as preempted under Federal law, the Federal or State regulator may seek expedited judicial review of such determination by the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the State is located or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by filing a petition for review in such court.

(b) Expedited review

The United States Court of Appeals in which a petition for review is filed in accordance with subsection (a) shall complete all action on such petition, including rendering a judgment, before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date on which such petition is filed, unless all parties to such proceeding agree to any extension of such period.

Any request for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States of any judgment of a United States Court of Appeals with respect to a petition for review under this section shall be filed with the Supreme Court of the United States as soon as practicable after such judgment is issued.

(d) Statute of limitationNo petition may be filed under this section challenging an order, ruling, determination, or other action of a Federal regulator or State insurance regulator after the later of—(1) the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date on which the first public notice is made of such order, ruling, determination or other action in its final form; or(2) the end of the 6-month period beginning on the date on which such order, ruling, determination, or other action takes effect.(e) Standard of review

The court shall decide a petition filed under this section based on its review on the merits of all questions presented under State and Federal law, including the nature of the product or activity and the history and purpose of its regulation under State and Federal law, without unequal deference.

(Pub. L. 106–102, title III, § 304, Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1409.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2001–2005 · leading case: Cline v. Hawke, 51 F. App'x 392 (4th Cir. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cline v. Hawke, 51 F. App'x 392 (4th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “See GLBA, § 304(a) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 6714 (a)). 16 CLINE v. HAWKE Virginia law will interfere with the ability of banks to enter the insur- ance market involves factual issues about insurance and banking prac- tices.”

Bowler v. Hawke, 320 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2003). “In filing the petition with this Court, Massachusetts relies on GLBA § 304(a), 15 U.S.C. § 6714 (a), which provides: In the case of a regulatory conflict between a State insurance regulator and a Federal regulator regarding insurance issues, including whether a State law, rule,…”

Ass'n of Banks in Ins. v. Duryee, 270 F.3d 397 (6th Cir. 2001). “” See 15 U.S.C. § 6714 (e). III. Ohio’s Principal Purpose Test Ohio’s “principal purpose test” is codified in O.”

Massachusetts Bankers Ass', Inc. v. Bowler, 392 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D. Mass. 2005). “Thereafter, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 6714 (a), 1 the Massachusetts Commissioners of Insurance and Banks and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts sought review in the First Circuit Court of Appeals of the “regulatory conflict” resulting from the OCC opinion.”

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.