Legal Opinion
Walsh v. First State Bank of Pennock
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided September 23, 1987No. C5-87-339, C6-87-379PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
POPOVICH, Chief Judge.
These appeals are from trial court summary judgments holding respondent state-chartered, federally-insured banks did not charge usurious interest rates on appellants’ agricultural loans. Appellants Walsh and Heimark claim the trial court erred because (1) Minn.Stat. § 334.011 exclusively determines the maximum interest rate permitted to be charged on agricultural class loans, and (2) 12 U.S.C. § 1831d does not extend the most favored lender doctrine to state-chartered, federally-insured banks making agricultural loans. Appellants Walsh additionally argue…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- First Bank East v. BobeldykCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
- Dahl v. Lanesboro State BankCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- VanderWeyst v. First State Bank of BensonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- First State Bank of Rushmore v. Van RulerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- VanderWeyst v. First State Bank of BensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Bandas v. Citizens State Bank of Silver LakeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Bandas v. Citizens State Bank of Silver LakeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- VanderWeyst v. First State Bank of BensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988