Legal Opinion

Hambrick v. First Security Bank

District Court, E.D. Arkansas

Decided September 17, 2004No. 4:04CV00067 JLHPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

HOLMES, District Judge.

Willie Hambrick alleges that First Security Bank violated the anti-assignment provision of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 407, as well as Arkansas law, when it offset funds deposited directly by the Social Security Administration into Ham-brick’s closed bank account against an account overdraft and an amount due on an unpaid promissory note. First Security Bank filed a motion for summary judgment (Docket # 7), arguing that it acted pursuant to the set-off provisions contained in the contract for the bank account and in the promissory note. For the…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. United States v. SilkSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  5. Helvering v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1937

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ball v. United Cumberland Bank (In re Ball)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2017
  2. In Re WardUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · 2011
  3. Lakewood Credit Union v. GoodrichCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API