Antonin Scalia

Name: Lewis v. Continental Bank Corporation — Opinion of the Court
Author: Antonin Scalia

Summary

“Lewis v. Continental Bank Corporation — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Antonin Scalia. It explores elements such as Continental, Florida and the District Court.

Quotes from Lewis v. Continental Bank Corporation… (Antonin Scalia)

Antonin Scalia, Lewis v. Continental Bank Corporation…

“ Continental informs us that under Florida law it remains free to amend its application so as to seek an uninsured rather than an insured ISB. Perhaps so. But it could also be said that every bank in the country is free to file an application seeking an uninsured Florida ISB. In the one case as in the other, the mere power to seek is not an indication of the intent to do so, and thus does not establish a particularized, concrete stake that would be affected by our judgment. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Antonin Scalia, Lewis v. Continental Bank Corporation…

“ Particularly at a time when prospective depositors have been reading news of widespread bank failures, FDIC insurance may well be seen as essential to viability.
Continental contends that it still has a claim for relief because its complaint sought not only the specific relief of ordering Lewis to process the original application, but also a declaration that the Florida statutes were unconstitutional and an injunction against their enforcement in the future. The BHCA amendment, it argues, does not render that requested relief nugatory insofar as it applies to uninsured banks. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Antonin Scalia, Lewis v. Continental Bank Corporation…

“ After this amendment to the BHCA, Lewis filed a petition for rehearing in the Court of Appeals, arguing that the new legislation mooted the controversy because the ISB that Continental proposed to establish would have FDIC-insured deposits and therefore would be a "bank" within the coverage of the BHCA. Such coverage, Lewis argued, would mean that Florida's refusal to permit Continental to establish an ISB, even if discriminatory against interstate commerce, would be authorized by federal law and hence immune from challenge under the Commerce Clause. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Antonin Scalia, Lewis v. Continental Bank Corporation…

“ Continental's challenge to the constitutionality of the Florida statutes' application to an uninsured bank that it has neither applied for nor expressed any intent to apply for amounts to a request for advice as to "what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts," Aetna Life Insurance Co. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Antonin Scalia, Lewis v. Continental Bank Corporation…

“ Whether Continental can be deemed a "prevailing party" in the District Court, even though its judgment was mooted after being rendered but before the losing party could challenge its validity on appeal, is a question of some difficulty, see, e.g., Palmer v. Chicago, 806 F.2d 1316, 1321 (CA7 1986) , that has been addressed by neither court below. We decline to resolve that, as well as the related question whether § 1988 fees are available in a Commerce Clause challenge. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Antonin Scalia, Lewis v. Continental Bank Corporation…

“ If Continental applies for and is denied a charter for an uninsured bank in Florida, there will be ample time to obtain judicial review of the denial.
Our ordinary practice in disposing of a case that has become moot on appeal is to vacate the judgment with directions to dismiss. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Antonin Scalia, Lewis v. Continental Bank Corporation…

“ Reasonable caution includes, we think, not accepting as conclusive the ex parte affidavit of the party seeking fees, without providing the other party the opportunity to adduce controverting facts that show the alleged dispute to be "abstract, feigned, or hypothetical." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Antonin Scalia, Lewis v. Continental Bank Corporation…

“ This case involves an Illinois bank holding company's challenge to certain Florida banking statutes that are alleged to violate the Commerce Clause, U.S.C.onst., Art. 1, § 8, cl. 3. We conclude that the case has been rendered moot by 1987 amendments to the Bank Holding Company Act.
* Under § 3 (d) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (BHCA) , 70 Stat. 134, as amended, 12 U.S.C. § 1842 (d) , a bank holding company with its principal banking operations in one State may not establish or acquire a bank in another State unless the latter State's statutes specifically authorize it to do so. ”

Antonin Scalia

Summary

Quotes from Lewis v. Continental Bank Corporation… (Antonin Scalia)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature