Court Opinion

ID: 9568542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:05:00.39899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:46:57.679644
License: Public Domain

CRIPPEN, Judge,
concurring specially.
Appellant argues strenuously that we erred in Bobeldyk, and that the decision there should be reconsidered. He contends that the most favored lender status recognized for national banks under the 1864 National Bank Act was based on a unique clause of this statute that is not found in the 1980 Federal Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, the recent legislation which was aimed at protecting state banks from some local regulations. A clause in the 1864 Act, not found in the 1980 Act, declares the freedom to charge rates permitted for another class of banks. Our earlier decisions do not include a response to appellant’s argument. Recognizing, however, the number of decisions already premised on the analysis of Bobeldyk, it is appropriate that this panel of judges elect against reviewing that decision.