Legal Opinion

Quaker City National Bank v. Hartley

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Decided December 22, 1981No. C-2-81-1027PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DUNCAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff Quaker City National Bank (Quaker) has instituted this action pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (the Holding Act), as amended, 12 U.S.C. §§ 1841 et seq., and the Change in Bank Control Act of 1978 (the Control Act), as amended, 12 U.S.C. § 1817(j). Before the Court are defendants’ motions to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6), and, in the alternative, for a protective order under Rule 26(c). Because the Court concludes that the former motion is well taken, however, it need not consider the latter.

I

Quaker is a…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cort v. AshSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. Whitney National Bank in Jefferson Parish v. Bank of New Orleans & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Orbanco, Inc. v. Security Bank of OregonDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1974

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Sylvester Marx v. Centran CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1984
  2. Heller Equity Capital Corp. v. Clem Environmental Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1992
  3. Texas First National Bank v. WuDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2004
  4. Ameribanc Investors Group v. ZwartDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1989
  5. Centerre Bancorporation v. KemperDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 1988

3 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