Anderson National Bank v. Luckett

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the substantive provisions and reporting requirements of an unclaimed property law are valid as applied to national banks
• holding that a state statute providing for transfer of abandoned bank deposits was not preempted because “national banks are subject to state laws, unless those laws infringe the national banking laws or impose an undue burden on them”
• holding that a state statute providing for transfer of abandoned bank deposits was not preempted because “national banks are subject to state laws, unless those laws infringe the national banking laws or impose an undue burden on them”
• holding that a state statute providing for transfer of abandoned bank deposits was not preempted because “national banks are subject to state laws, unless those laws infringe the national banking laws or impose an undue burden on them”
• determining that no “word in the national banking laws . . . expressly or by implication conficts with the provisions of the Kentucky statutes”
• determining that no “word in the national banking laws . . . expressly or by implication conflicts with the provisions of the Kentucky statutes”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).