Legal Opinion

Holland v. Nakdimen

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided September 24, 1928PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). The correctness of the decree of the chancery court depends upon the validity or invalidity of act 118, passed by the Legislature of 1927, having for its purpose to regulate the rate of interest which may be paid by banks in the State of Arkansas on deposits. Acts of 1927, p. 357.

Section 1 of the act reads as follows:

“That from and after the passage of this act it shall be unlawful for any bank, savings bank or trust company, or other association of persons engaged in the business of receiving deposits within this State, to either directly or indirectly…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Noble State Bank v. HaskellSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  2. Engel v. O'MALLEYSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  3. Schallenberger v. First State Bank of HolsteinSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  4. Musco v. . United Surety Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1909
  5. Blaker v. Hood & KincaidsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1894

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Placek v. EdstromNebraska Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Piggott State Bank v. State Banking BoardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1967
  3. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. BrunSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
  4. State Bonded Audit Bureau, Inc. v. Pomona Mutual Building & Loan Ass'nAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1940
  5. Simpson v. Monette State BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1964

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

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

Powered by the Exa API