# New York Stock Exchange, Inc. And Investment Company Institute v. Robert Bloom, Acting Comptroller of the Currency

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · August 31, 1977 · 562 F.2d 736

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9464145

## Case

- **Full name:** NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC. and Investment Company Institute, Appellants, v. Robert BLOOM, Acting Comptroller of the Currency
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** August 31, 1977
- **Citations:** 562 F.2d 736; 183 U.S. App. D.C. 217
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wright
- **Judges:** Wright, McGowan, Tamm
- **Cited by:** 45 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9464145

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding informal advisory letter from Comptroller’s office not ripe for review
- declining to find Abbott’s hardship requirement met where informal agency action had no immediate effect on the parties invoking the court’s jurisdiction

## Opinion text

WRIGHT, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the court’s opinion. Because I believe that Judge McGowan is correct in suggesting that the appellants do have a private right of action under the GlassSteagall Act against banks using Automatic Investment Services, appellants should first be required to put the issue in more concrete form by exploring that avenue of potential relief. However, if it is ultimately held that appellants lack a private right of action, prudential concerns inhering in the “hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration” 1 would, in my judgment, remove any doubt as to the ripeness of a subsequent suit by appellants against the ComptroIiSrT There should be some means to obtain review of the Comptroller’s interpretation of the statute. 2
. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149 , 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1515 , 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967).
. See Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560, 567 , 95 S.Ct. 1851 , 44 L.Ed.2d 377 (1975); Abbott Laboratories, Inc. v. Gardner, supra note 1, 387 U.S. at 139-140 , 87 S.Ct. 1507 ; Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288, 307-308 , 64 S.Ct. 559 , 88 L.Ed. 733 (1944).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9464145. Public record. Not legal advice.