Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Commonwealth of Virginia Ex Rel. State Corporationcommission, Appellant, v. Farmers and Merchants National Bank, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 515 F.2d 154
Argued April 11, 1975.Decided May 5, 1975
Anthony F. Troy, Deputy Atty. Gen. of Va. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen. of Va., and William F. Schutt, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellant.
Peter B. Work, Washington, D.C. (James F. Bell, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Washington, D.C., on brief), for amicus curiae The Conference of State Bank Supervisors.
Flournoy Largent, Jr., Winchester, Va. (Largent, Anderson & Larrick, Winchester, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before WINTER and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and MERHIGE,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
By the instant suit, the Commonwealth of Virginia sought to prevent Farmers and Merchants National Bank from operating a drive-in banking facility approximately 204 feet from the rear of the Front Royal branch banking office located at Main and Crescent Streets in the town of Front Royal, Virginia. The Drive-in facility was physically separated from the branch bank by at least one public street and by other property not owned by the bank. Injunctive relief was sought on the bround that the drive-in facility was a "branch" bank and allegedly could not be established and maintained under applicable state law. 12 U.S.C. Sec. 36(c) and (f).
In a thorough and carefully considered decision, the district court concluded that the question of whether a banking facility constitutes a "branch" is a question of federal law (First National Bank in Plant City, Fla. v. Dickinson, 396 U.S. 122, 90 S.Ct. 337, 24 L.Ed.2d 312 (1969)); and, applying federal law, it concluded further that the drive-in facility which was the subject of litigation was not a "branch" but an extension of an existing banking office, the maintenance of which was authorized under both state and federal law. We think that the district court was correct in its conclusions for the reasons and the authorities set forth in its opinion. The judgment of the district court is, therefore,
Affirmed.