Jackson v. First National Bank of Gainesville

4 Citing cases

  1. Brown v. Clarke

    878 F.2d 627 (2d Cir. 1989)   Cited 3 times

    The attorney general's opinions are not in conflict with the state statute and are entitled to deference.See, e.g., Plant City, 400 F.2d 548, 558 (5th Cir., 1968); Jackson v. First Nat'l Bank of Cornelia, 292 F.Supp. 156, 161 (N.D.Ga. 1968), aff'd, 430 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 947, 91 S.Ct. 933, 27 L.Ed.2d 230 (1971). See also Lincoln Bank Trust Co. v. Exchange Nat'l Bank Trust Co., 383 F.2d 694, 699 (10th Cir. 1967).

  2. Ghiglieri v. Sun World, Nat. Ass'n

    942 F. Supp. 1111 (W.D. Tex. 1996)   Cited 2 times

    Id. at 690. See also Jackson v. First Nat'l Bank of Gainesville, 430 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 947, 91 S.Ct. 933, 28 L.Ed.2d 230 (1971). The Southaven court further held that the Comptroller would be justified in concluding that "a principal motivation" for relocating the bank's main office was to enable the bank to "accomplish branching under conditions contrary to state law."

  3. First National Bank of Southaven v. Camp

    333 F. Supp. 682 (N.D. Miss. 1971)   Cited 5 times
    Concluding that, while a relocation itself may be permissible, the OCC may not approve a combination of applications that constitute an effort to evade the state's branching laws

    For the Comptroller to take an overall view of both aspects of the application is consistent with the proposition that "the whole scheme of maintaining competitive equality between national and State banking systems looks to substance and not form." Jackson v. First National Bank of Gainsville, 430 F.2d 1200 (5 Cir. 1970). And while the Comptroller is not bound by state laws with respect to the main office relocation of a national bank, he is not required to ignore them in considering the competitive aspects of an application.

  4. Opinion No. MW-304

    Opinion No. MW-304 (Ops. Tex. Atty. Gen. Mar. 16, 1981)

    We note that the funds are not deposited in the Austin bank, but instead are merely sent to the depository bank in another city by wire transfer. See First National Bank v. Dickinson, 396 U.S. 122 (1969); Jackson v. First National Bank, 430 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1970). From the facts you have stated, the agreement is clearly between the city and the Austin bank, and it cannot be said that the Austin bank is acting as a branch or representative of the city depository bank. So long as the latter is not a party to that agreement, we do not believe that any question of branch banking would arise.