refusing to extend complete preemption to Section 85 and Section 86 of the National Bank Act, or to Section 521 of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act
Summary of this case from Strong v. Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc.Nos. 94-3203, 94-3204, 94-3215, 94-3216, 94-3217, 94-3218
Argued on February 2, 1995
Opinion Filed December 29, 1995 Vacated February 16, 1996.
refusing to extend complete preemption to Section 85 and Section 86 of the National Bank Act, or to Section 521 of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act
Summary of this case from Strong v. Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc.interpreting the provisions of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 85
Summary of this case from Cappalli v. Nordstrom FSBIn Spellman v. Meridian Bank, 1995 WL 764548 (3rd Cir. 1995), a panel of the Third Circuit reversed the district court rulings in Ament v. PNC National Bank and Goehl v. Mellon Bank, holding that complete preemption does not apply to such claims.
Summary of this case from Jones v. Bankboston, N.A.outlining the "narrow" complete preemption doctrine and noting that "ordinary preemption differs from complete preemption. . . . The former is a question of what substantive law — federal or state — should control a claim brought pursuant to state law"
Summary of this case from Pauley v. Ford Electronics and Refrigeration Corp., (S.D.Ind. 1996)Full title:I. ORRIN SPELLMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated…
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Date published: Dec 29, 1995
Finally, we believe it is inconsistent to permit the aggregation of punitive damages to meet the…
Kenney v. Farmers Nat. Bank of OpelikaThe Kenneys point to cases to the contrary. See, e.g., Spellman v. Meridian Bank, 1995 WL 764548 (3rd Cir.…