15 Cited authorities

Almendarez-Torres v. United States
523 U.S. 224 (1998) Cited 6,530 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that the fact of a prior conviction is not an element of an offense even when it increases a defendant's statutory maximum term of imprisonment
Wyeth v. Levine
555 U.S. 555 (2009) Cited 1,429 times 101 Legal Analyses
Holding that the FDA's drug labeling judgments pursuant to the FDCA did not obstacle preempt state law products liability claims
Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital
488 U.S. 204 (1988) Cited 1,716 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts will not defer to an agency's litigating position where it contradicts the agency's prior “regulations, rulings, or administrative practice”
Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co.
529 U.S. 861 (2000) Cited 786 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding the absence of an express pre-emption clause “does not bar the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles”
Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson
517 U.S. 25 (1996) Cited 486 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal statute permitting banks to act as agents of insurance companies, although not insurers themselves, was a statute regulating the "business of insurance" for McCarran-Ferguson purposes
Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n, L. L.C.
557 U.S. 519 (2009) Cited 157 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that states cannot informally subpoena national banks through their "capacity as supervisor of corporations"
Western Security Bank v. Superior Court
15 Cal.4th 232 (Cal. 1997) Cited 287 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that Legislature's retroactive intent was plain because the bill stated that it was intended to abrogate a specific court of appeal holding and " ‘confirm the expectation of the parties’ " that an earlier interpretation of applicable law would apply
First National Bank v. Dickinson
396 U.S. 122 (1969) Cited 134 times
Holding that federal law governs the definition of branch banking under the McFadden Act
Franklin Nat. Bank v. New York
347 U.S. 373 (1954) Cited 106 times
Holding that federal statutes authorizing national banks to receive savings deposits preempted New York law barring non-state-chartered banks from using the word "savings" in advertising, since the law interfered with the banks' "right to let the public know about" a business in which federal law permitted them to engage
Rose v. Chase Bank USA, N.A.
513 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 50 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims based on certain disclosure violations were preempted by the NBA
Section 24 - Corporate powers of associations
12 U.S.C. § 24 Cited 661 times 43 Legal Analyses
Authorizing banks "[t]o exercise . . . all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking; by discounting and negotiating promissory notes, drafts, bills of exchange, and other evidences of debt . . . and by obtaining, issuing, and circulating notes"
Section 25b - State law preemption standards for national banks and subsidiaries clarified
12 U.S.C. § 25b Cited 56 times 24 Legal Analyses
Establishing that state consumer financial laws are preempted if their "application ... would have a discriminatory effect on national banks, in comparison with the effect of the law on a bank chartered by that State"
Section 7.4008 - Lending by national banks
12 C.F.R. § 7.4008 Cited 65 times 4 Legal Analyses
Allowing banks to make non-real estate loans without regard to, inter alia, “disclosure and advertising”

PARKS v. MBNA AMERICA BANK

15 Cited authorities

Holding that the fact of a prior conviction is not an element of an offense even when it increases a defendant's statutory maximum term of imprisonment

Holding that the FDA's drug labeling judgments pursuant to the FDCA did not obstacle preempt state law products liability claims

Holding that courts will not defer to an agency's litigating position where it contradicts the agency's prior “regulations, rulings, or administrative practice”

Holding the absence of an express pre-emption clause “does not bar the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles”

Holding that a federal statute permitting banks to act as agents of insurance companies, although not insurers themselves, was a statute regulating the "business of insurance" for McCarran-Ferguson purposes

Holding that states cannot informally subpoena national banks through their "capacity as supervisor of corporations"

Finding that Legislature's retroactive intent was plain because the bill stated that it was intended to abrogate a specific court of appeal holding and " ‘confirm the expectation of the parties’ " that an earlier interpretation of applicable law would apply

Holding that federal law governs the definition of branch banking under the McFadden Act

Holding that claims based on certain disclosure violations were preempted by the NBA

Authorizing banks "[t]o exercise . . . all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking; by discounting and negotiating promissory notes, drafts, bills of exchange, and other evidences of debt . . . and by obtaining, issuing, and circulating notes"

Establishing that state consumer financial laws are preempted if their "application ... would have a discriminatory effect on national banks, in comparison with the effect of the law on a bank chartered by that State"

Allowing banks to make non-real estate loans without regard to, inter alia, “disclosure and advertising”