Pacific Capital Bank, N.A. v. Connecticut

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a third-party tax preparer who facilitated the processing of refund anticipation loans for a national bank was not subject to Connecticut law regulating such loans
• holding that, under the National Bank Act’s preemption provision, “a national bank is ‘located’ . . . in a state in which it has its main or branch offices”
• finding standing for pre-enforcement challenge by national bank to state statute limiting certain interest rates where plaintiff “reasonably interpreted [the statute’s] limitation as, on its face, applying to [the plaintiff]”
• relying on the express grant of power in 12 U.S.C. § 85
• relying on the express grant of power in 12 U.S.C. § 85
• “[W]ithout cross-appealing, [the appellee] may not advance a theory that challenges some aspect of the lower court’s judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).