First Union National Bank v. Burke

48 F. Supp. 2d 132 (1999)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

First Union National Bank v. Burke

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
48 F. Supp. 2d 132 (1999)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD

Facts

First Union National Bank (First Union) and Fleet Bank, N.A. (Fleet) (plaintiffs) were national banks that operated automated teller machines (ATMs) within the State of Connecticut. First Union and Fleet imposed surcharge fees for the use of their ATMs by persons who were not depositors at their respective banks. The Connecticut Banking Commissioner, John Burke (the commissioner) (defendant) issued administrative cease-and-desist orders to First Union and Fleet to stop imposing surcharge fees or they would face fines for each violation. First Union and Fleet responded by filing separate actions against the commissioner, seeking injunctive relief prohibiting the commissioner from enforcing his order. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the comptroller) intervened in these actions to preserve its exclusive authority to enforce all state and federal banking laws against national banks. The comptroller filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, and the commissioner filed a motion to dismiss. The comptroller argued that the commissioner’s attempt to bring administrative enforcement actions against national banks was preempted by the comptroller’s visitorial, or oversight, powers. The comptroller also argued that the Electronic Funds Transfer Act actually preserved federal authority over administrative enforcement actions rather than granting states an independent enforcement power as argued by the commissioner. The commissioner argued that ATM transactions between a national bank and a nondepositor did not constitute banking business, so those transactions were outside the comptroller’s exclusive regulatory authority. The commissioner also argued that the preclusion of state enforcement of state law violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court considered both the comptroller’s motion for a preliminary injunction and the commissioner’s motion to dismiss.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Arterton, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 830,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership