# Amicus Curiae Brief — Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A. v. American Land Title Ass'n > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386011_1316%3A5 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1993 - **Citation:** 508 U.S. 971 ## Text eer * Fou KF’ ©&D Nos. 92-182, 92-645 WOW 12 BR IN THE ‘ORRGE OF THE CLERK Supreme Court of the Wuited States OCTOBER TERM, 1992 THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N.A., ig tition rs Vv. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION, ef al,. 4 ; ACSpowdedrts, STEPHEN R. STEINBRINK, ACTING COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY, ef al.. Petit f A On Petitions fora Writ of Certiorarito the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS OF AMERICA, INC., NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CASUALTY & SURETY AGENTS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LIFE UNDERWRITERS, AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE AGENTS, IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS JONATHAN B. SALLET * ANN M. KAPPLER JENNER & BLOCK 601 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Twelfth Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 639-6000 November 1992 Counsel for Amic: QUESTION PRESENTED Whether national banks may engage in the title in- surance agency business outside of the limitation estab- lished by Congress in 12 U.S.C. 92 Y" enactment to address the permissible scope of insurance agency activities by national banks? (1) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED ue i PM TPIT ME) FE RRMPERE © LEUED oo cccceccccaccsecccccccveccccvecescconnsucss V INTEREST OF AMICI y) INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGU- MENT 2 ARGUMENT Pas 5 I. THERE IS NO REASON TO ADDRESS THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF SECTION 92 5 A. There Is No Meaningful Conflict Between the Circuits . both faeces ae. 5 B. The Second Circuit’s Ruling, in Dicta, and the D.C. Circuit’s Ruling Regarding Section 92’s Existence Do Not Create Conflicting Obligations or Rights for Any Entity 9 C. The Issue Is Currently Percolating in the Couris letee 10 Il. THERE IS NO NEED FOR THIS COURT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE INTERAC- TION OF SECTIONS 92 AND 24 (SEVENTH) OF THE NATIONAL BANK ACT . . 12 A. There Is No Real Conflict With Any Other Court a Be 12 RB. Petitioners’ Dire Predictions of Threatened National Bank Powers As a Result of the Second Circuit’s Decision Are Pure, Un- founded Speculation 14 C. None of Petitioners’ Arguments That the Second Circuit’s Decision Is Wrong Is Per- suasive 15 (iil) iv TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page Il. THE ISSUES ON WHICH PETITIONERS SEEK REVIEW ARE NOT CLEANLY ] SENTED IV. THE CONTROVERSY REGARDING THE IN- SURANCE-RELATED POWERS OF NA- TIONAL BANKS SHOULD BE LEFT TO CONGRESS 20) CONCLUSION Vv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page American Ins, Ass’n v. Clarke, 865 F.2d 278 (D.C. Cir. 1988) - a. mae American Fidelity Bank & Trust Co. v. Heimann, 683 F.2d 999 (6th Cir. 1982) _.........00000000cccccc cc. 19 American Land Tulle Ass'n v. Clarke, 968 F 24 150 Coe QaP. BP aicccss ee arte earn PRE At passim Black v. Cutter Laboratories, 25] U.S. 292 (1956).. 18 Board of Governors v. Dimension Fin. Corp., 474 oP Se 3s). | nen oe ee naan 19 Botany Worsted Mills v. U ited States. 278 U. S. Be CRORE ise sseaeeeeee 8 Independent Ins. Agents o ‘in erica, Inc. v. C Naph é, 955 F.2d 731, reh’g, en oe denied, “ F.2d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (petitions for cert. pend- ing) . sch Bedsddncétsaiiasrae ee ee passim Independent Bankers Ass'n of America v. He imann, 613 F.2d 1164 (1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 823 E RTI D ove ccnuercnsacccsoncrioncseaavelael tee 12,13 2 ogan Count fy N t 7. Daal v. Tow HSE —y 139 U. Ss. a: ee eo iene ccs neee cee 6 Midland Telecasting v. Midessa Te le vision Co., 617 F.2d 1141 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 449 US. 954 (1980) Pe EN Ne Roney rT Tt 8 National R. Passenger Corp. Netinaal Ass’n of R. Passengers, 414 U.S. 168 (1974) a 8 Neuberger v. Commissioner, 311 U.S. 83 (1940)... 16 Owensboro Nat'l Bank v. Moore, No. 91-3 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 4, 1992) (appeals pending) scanvocse ale ae Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (1974) eee 15 Savon v. Georgia Ass'n of Ind. Ins. Agents, Inec., 399 F.2d 1010 (Sth Cir. 1968) . See 1,9 Stemnbrink v. Independent Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., No. 92-507 vi ein eyed ne ees 2,5 Texas & Pac. Ry. fac . Pottorf, 9294 U.S. 245 (1934) “Ad LEN atsoneee et ee 5, 6,8 United States National Sid of ee gon dia pendent Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., No. ob me 2 Variable gsi Life Ins. Co. v. Clarke, 786 F. Supp. 639 (S.D. Tex. 1991), appeal pending, No. 92-2010 Pi NMR 5d heeetcsscectea a caeearaanas Ecsb padeens 2,11,14 Qty f } ) Pave \ct of Keb >). LRG ( } ) 1] I? stat. 665 ACT OI 8S plember 7, 1916, Pub ,, No. 64 270. 39 stat. 752 7 - xX" ] National ‘ Bank Act section 92 ~ pa Ad United States Code o7T.e rs C F 12 | ee 8S 24 { ( eT) } pa yr 4 ’ ) . ‘ ard ‘ Ky. Rev. Stat. 287.030 0) M NC ¢ llane OlSs *) 4" ) > . nel rw ’ " ‘ -_ 2 Fed. Reg. Bull. 73 (Feb. 1, 1916) 6,7 ro ‘ > ‘ y Py ’ “7 : . -— : = v8 Cong. Rec. 11001 (daily ed July 14 Q16) 6.7.9 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OcroBper TERM, 1992 NO 92 182 Pre CHA HATTAN BANK, N.A., Petitione i. AMERICAN LAND THLE ASSOCIATION, ef al., Ree sponde Ht I; . G f Pe TROLLER OF THE CURRENCY, ef al Pe fifiopie - » TITLE ASSOCIATION, ef al, Respondents, On Petitions fora Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS OF AMERICA, INC. NATIONAL ASSOCTATION OF CASUALTY & SURETY AGENTS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LIFE UNDERWRITERS, AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE AGENTS, IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS 9 INTEREST OF AMICI Amici curiae Independent Insurance Agents of Amer- ica, Inc., National Association of Casualty & Surety Agents, National Association of Life Underwriters, and National Association of Professional Insurance Agents are non-profit national trade associations that represent hundreds of thousands of insurance agents and their em- ployees throughout the United States. Amici are respond- ents in United States National Bank of Oregon v. Inde- pendent Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., No. 92-484, and Steinbrink v. Independent Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., No. 92-507, which the Solicitor General has suggested should be treated the same as this case. Amici have long maintained that their members’ in- terest in sustaining and improving the insurance business environment is served by endorsing the separation of banking and insurance as provided under current law. In this regard, amici and their state affiliates have par- ticipated as parties and amici in numerous federal ac- tions concerning the power of banks to engage in the business of insurance, including several cases that peti- tioners contend are relevant here. See Owensboro Nat’l Bank v. Moore, No. 91-3 (E.D.Ky. Aug. 4, 1992) (ap- peals pending) ; Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. v. Clarke, 786 F. Supp. 639 (S.D. Tex. 1991), appeal pending, No. 92-2010 (5th Cir.) ; and American Ins. Ass’n 1. Clarke, 865 F.2d 278 «D.C. Cir. 1988). Amici fully support the arguments presented by Re- spondents and submit this brief to supplement those arzuments.' INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT In its decision below, the United States Court of Ap- peals for the Second Circuit unanimously held that. na- 1 All the parties to this action have consented to the filing of this amicus brief in support of Respondents. Their letters of consent have been lodged with the Court. 3 tional banks are not empowered by the National Bank Act (the “Act”) to act as agents for insurance companies in the sale of title insurance. American Land Title Ass’n “. Clarke, 968 F.2d 150 (2d Cir. 1992) (“ALTA”). The court ruled that Section 92 of the National Bank Act limits national banks’ incidental powers under Section 24 (Seventh) of the Act. The Court concluded that “the language of Section 92 evinces Congress’ intent to bar national banks that fall outside of the provision’s geo- graphical restrictions from acting as insurance agents.” Id. at 155. The Court further concluded that the con- temporaneous legislative history “indicate|s| that when Congress enacted Section 92, it did so in the belief that under existing banking law (specifically 12 U.S.C. § 24 (Seventh!) national banks had no authority to engage in insurance agency activities. Furthermore, the Comptrol- ler’s [1916] letter provides evidence that Congress in- tended to withhold from national banks, located in towns with over 5,000 inhabitants, the authority to sell insur- ance.” /d. at 156. Without having received briefing or hearing argument on the issue, the Second Circuit, as a preliminary point, sua sponte concluded that Section 92 had not been re- pealed, disagreeing with the D.C. Circuit's contrary hold- ing in Independent lus. Ayents of America v. Clarke, 955 F.2d iol, rely, Ch baie, deni d, 965 F.2d 1077 (Ee... Cir. 1992) (“/14A") ‘petitions pending). By contrast, the D.C. Cireuit, sitting en hance, considered fully-briefed arguments on both sides of the issue before declining to vacate the //AA panel’s ruling that Section 92 no longer exists... The D.C. Circuit’s well-reasoned decision in IJAA. effectively endorsed by the full court sitting en bane, correctly resolves the issue of Section 92's continued existence. There is no meaningful conflict on this issue. Petition- ers misread the Second Circuit’s decision below in assert- “No member of the full D.C. Circuit court voted io rehear the panel’s decision regarding the existence of Section 92. 4 ing that there is such a conflict. To be sure the court, in dicta, disagreed with the D.C. Cireuit’s conclusion that Section 92 does not exist. But the key to the court’s reasoning is that Section 92 was enacted in the first in- stance—a conclusion that no one challenges. Having en- acted Section 92, Congress made clear its view that See- tion 24 (Seventh) does not provide for any insurance powers. The subsequent history of Section 92—whatever it is—sheds no additional light on the meaning of Section 24 (Seventh!. Thus, the Second Cireuit’s decision below would be no different even if it had concluded that Sec- tion 92 was repealed. Moreover, the issues presented to the two courts, and the court's holdings, are very differ- ent. No one-is subject to conflicting directives as a result of the two decisions. Further, the question of See- tion 92’s continued existence may arise in two other Cir- cuits and there is no need to address the issue now. Nor does that portion of the Second Circuit's reasoning concerning the interaction of Section 92 and Section 24 (Seventh) warrant review by this Court. Contrary to petitioners’ assertions, there is no real or direct conflict With the decisions of other courts; the reasoning is con- sistent with the language and legislative history of the Act; and the decision does not threaten national banks’ previously-authorized insurance-related activities. Petitioners’ belief that national banks should be per- mitted to engage in a wide range of non-banking activi- ties—including the sale of title insurance-——should be addressed to Congress. This Court is not the forum for effectuating policy changes. » ARGUMENT I. THERE IS NO REASON TO ADDRESS THE CON- TINUED EXISTENCE OF SECTION 92. The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) alone re- quests review of the Second Circuit’s conclusion that Section 92 of the National Bank Act continues to exist. The Solicitor General, on behalf ef the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (‘Comptroller’), pointedly refrains from raising that issue here, asking this Court instead to review the D.C. Cireuit’s ruling in //AA. Steinbrink v. Independent Ins. Agents of Am., Ine., No. 92-507. The issue does not warrant this Court’s review in either case." ; A. There Is No Meaningful Conflict Between the Circuits. Contrary to petitioners’ representations, there is no meaningful conflict between the Second Cireuit and the D.C. Circuit. The Second Circuit’s conclusion below was dicta: the court need not have resolved the issue of Sec- tion 92’s continued existence in order to conclude that national banks are not empowered to act as agents for title insurance companies. It is the enactment of Section 92 that evinces Congress’ intent to limit national banks’ power to sell insurance. Its subsequent history, however construed, cannot change this conclusion. Regardless Whether Section 92 exists or nct, national banks are not permitted to engage in the sale of title insurance as agents for insurance companies. For that reason, there Was no necessity for the court to decide whether Section 92 had been repealed. It is well-established that national banks are limited to those activities authorized them by law. E.g., Texas & * Amiei, respondents to the petitions seeking review of the D.C. Cireuit’s decision in J7AA, will more fully address the reasons why review of this issue is not warranted in their opposition brief. in ITAA, That brief is due to be filed on November 21, 1992. 6 Pac. Ry. Co. ve. Pottor ff, 291 US, 245, 253 (19384): Logan Cow) iif Nat'l Bank v. Townsend. 139 U.S. 67, 73 t1sS91). Congress enacted the predecessor of Section 24 (Seventh) In 1863. Act of Feb. 25, 1863, Ch. 58, $ 11, 12 Stat. 665, bbS. Like the current version, the statute identified a series of express powers, and included the provision. of “incidental” and “necessary” powers. See 12 U.S.C. § 24 (Seventh). In 1916, then-Comptroller of the Currency, John Skelton Williams, wrote a letter to the Senate Banking and Cur- rency Committee requesting that national banks located In small towns be permitted to act as insurance agents. 93 Cong. Ree. 11001 (daily ed. July 14, 19161." The Comptroller expressed a desire to find a statutory mecha- nism whereby “the powers of small national banks might be enlarged so as to provide them with additional sources of revenue and to place them in a position where they could better compete with local State banks and. with companies Which are sometimes authorized under the law to do a class of business not strictly that of commercial banking.” Id. ‘emphasis added). The Comptroller stated, however, that “from the standpoint of public policy and banking efficiency this authority should be limited to banks in small communities.” /d. Accordingly, the Comp- troller proposed an amendment to the National Bank Act. explicitly noting that national banks were conferred “‘in- cidental” and “necessary” powers, Comptroller Williams explained that his proposed amendment was nevertheless required because “|n]ational banks are not given either expressly or by necessary implication the power to act as agents for insurance companies.” /d... Comptroller Wil- ‘The letter was entered into the congressional record by Sena This view conformed with the opinion of the Board of Gove rnors i. ee . , i } | } - ft the Federal Reserve, which held in 1915 that national banks had no authority, express or implied, to engave in insurance agence. écese *y* , P ] > ] | es 4 . . activities The Board ruled that tiny such evtension of the poWers of national banks must be left to the consideration of Con- liams therefore clearly understood that a national bank’s acting as agent for an insurance company was not an “incidental power... necessary to carry on the business of banking.” /d. In response, Congress enacted Comptroller Williams’ proposed amendment. Act of September 7, 1916, Pub. L. No. 64-270, 39 Stat. 752-53 (the “1916 Act”). The critical] language of the 1916 Act, provides: Section fifty-two hundred and two of the Revised Statutes of the United States |Section 13 of the Fed- eral Kheserve Act of 1913] is hereby amended so as to “That by addition to thie pow? PS pow vested by law in national banking associations organized under the laws of the United States any such association located and doing business in any place the population of Which does not exceed five thousand inhabitants, as shown by the last preceding decennial census, may, under such rules and regulations as may be pre- scribed by the Comptroller of the Currency, act as the agent for any fire, life, or other insurance company authorized by the authorities of the State in which said bank is located to do business in said State, by soliciting and selling insurance and collecting pre- miums on policies issued by such company; 4 (fi mphasis added). As the Fifth Circuit has recognized, prior to enactment of Section 92, ‘no national bank possessed any power to act as insurance agents.” Sawvon v. Georgia Ass’n of Ind. Ins, Agents, 8399 F.2d 1010, 1016 (5th Cir. 1968) (em- phasis in original). By its explicit addition to national gress.” 2 Fed. Reg. Bull. 73, 74 (Feb. 1, 1916) (emphasis added At the time-——as now— national banks were ¢ranted the power “[t lo + exercise ... all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry » , on the business of banking.” See fd. at 8 banks’ powers, Section 92 constituted the sole source of authority for national banks to engage in’ insurance- agency activities.” Section 92 was thought necessary pre- cisely for the reason that, as was universally understood, national banks otherwise had neither the express nor in- cidental power to sell insurance. Section 92 thus reflects Congress’ understanding that insurance-ageney powers were beyond the powers conveyed by the other provisions of the National Bank Act-—including the grant of “such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking.” See Tewas & Pac. Ry. Co. +. Pot- torff, 291 US. at 258 & n.13 ‘amendment to National Bank Act to provide limited power to pledge assets to secure deposits “indicates that Congress believed that the original act had not granted general power to pledge as- sets to secure deposits”) (citing legislative history simi- lar to that of Section 92). In 1918, as the D.C. Circuit correctly ruled in //AA, Congress repealed Section 92. Section 92 is the only stat- utory enactment that has ever addressed the insurance agency powers of national banks. The effect of Congress’ 8 See Botany Worsted Mills +. United States, 278 U.S, 282. 289 (1929) (“When a statute limits a thing to be done in a particular mode, it includes the negative of any other mode.’): National R Passe nger Corp. ». Natronal Ass'n of R. Passe YYETS, 114 U.S: 453. 158 (1904) (same); Midland Telecasting v. Midessa Television Co. 617 F.2d 1141, 1145 n.7 (Sth Cir.) (“The existence of 2 Specific statutory | exemption covering certain acts is evidence that Con yress did not intend to grant in munity to other acts not covered 1) the explicit exemptions.”), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 954 (1980 * The Court noted in Pottor# that the fact that Congress enacted the limited power in a separate section, rather than as an amend ment to Section 24( Seventh), indicates that ¢ ongress did not mean merely to clarify that the power of a national bank to pledge its assets to secure deposits was contained in the grant of “incidental” powers. 2917 U.S. at 259. Similarly, the enactment of the limited insurance-agency authority in a separate statutory provision (Se tion 92) refutes any suggestion that it was me rely a clarification of powers already conferred by Section 24(Seventh gy repeal of Section 92 is thus plain: there is no longer any authority for national banks to sell insurance. The repeal of Section 92 reinforces Congress’ intention to deprive national banks of even the limited authority to sell insur- ance in small towns that it briefly permitted from 1916 to 1918. Congress thus reinstated the law as it existed prior to Section 92’s enactment: “no national bank pos- sesse[s] avy power to act as insurance agents.” Saaon, 399 F.2d at 1016 (emphasis in original). Yet the Comptroller, in his decision at issue in this case, has authorized national banks to engage in this very activity. He has authorized Chase to act as agent for title insurance companies. This is precisely the power once permitted (in small towns only) that Congress re- scinded in 1918. As Comptroller Williams recognized 75 years ago, “the Comptroller of the Currency has no right to authorize or permit a national bank to exercise powers not conferred upon it by law.” 53 Cong. Rec. 11001 (daily ed. July 14, 1916). Thus, contrary to petitioners’ assertions, even if. this Court were to grant review and determine that the Second Circuit incorrectly ruled on Section 92’s continued exist- ence, that determination would not alter the outcome of the Second Circuit's decision. Bb. The Second Circuit’s Ruling, in Dicta, and the D.C. Circuit’s Ruling Regarding Section 92’s Existence Do Not Create Conflicting Obligations or Rights for Any Entity. In /JAA, these amici challenged the Comptroller’s rul- ing permitting the United States National Bank of Ore- gon to sell insurance from its office located in a town of less than 5,000 to customers located throughout the United States, pursuant to Section 92 of the National Bank Act. Amici argued, in JJAA, that a national bank’s insurance-agency activities must be confined to the “small town” in which it is located. The D.C. Circuit held that 10 Section 92 no longer exists. Because the Comptroller had cited no other authority for its challenged ruling, the court concluded that the ruling was not in accordance with law. 955 F.2d at 739. That is, the D.C. Cireuit held that the Comptroller cannot invoke Section 92 as a source of authority to permit national banks to sell insurance from ‘“‘smail towns.”’ By contrast, the decision below presents and addresses only the narrow issue of national banks’ authority to sell title insurance. The Second Circuit held that, given Sec- tion 92, the Comptroller cannot invoke Section 24 (Sev- enth) as a source of authority to permit national banks to sell title insurance from offices that are not located in small towns. The two decisions address very different issues. And the two holdings concern entirely different topics. 1992 ——_—_— IN THE GFFICE OF THE CLERK | Supreme Court of the Anited States OCTOBER TERM, 1992 THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N.A., Petitioner, V. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION, et al., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari To the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit BRIEF OF THE AMICI CURIAE AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL.,* IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER JOHN J. GILL III Counsel of Record MICHAEL F. Crottry AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 663-5026 Attorneys for Amici Curiae November 12, 1992 (“Complete list of sponsoring organizations and counsel on inside of cover.| PRESS OF BYRON S. ADAMS, WASHINGTON, D.C. (202) 347-8203 RICHARD M. WHITING ASSOCIATION OF BANK HOLDING COMPANIES 730 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 398-1158 JAMES T. MCINTYRE McNAIR LAW FIRM 1155 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 659-3900 Attorney for Association of Banks in Insurance MARCIA Z. SULLIVAN CONSUMER BANKERS ASSOCIATION 1000 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22209 (703) 276-1750 JOHN S. JACKSON MINNESOTA BANKERS ASSOCIATION 730 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 338-5137 WADE L. NASH MISSOURI BANKERS ASSOCIATION 207 E. Capitol Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (314) 636-8151 JOHN E. KNIGHT BOARDMAN, SUHR, CURRY & FIELD P.O. Box 927 Madison, Wisconsin 53701 (608) 257-9521 Attorney for Wisconsin Bankers Association QUESTION PRESENTED Whether Section 92 of the National Bank Act, granting insurance agency powers to national banks in small towns that are ‘‘in addition to the powers now vested by law in national banking associations,”’ constitutes an implied limitation upon the incidental powers of national banks, granted elsewhere in the statute, where such banks are located in larger towns. TABLE OF CONTENTS nnn WEE ccs atu chee iaabiaaieeeuieuenuanens Be ee I scr sctcecounslcceasnesturcossasdasansakens SCRTORE OF CG ATIC TUTIRG scccsicsssesesscvsecsssesccsoves Reasons for Granting the Writ ................ eee 1. The Conflicts Among the Circuits ............... II. The Important Question of Federal Law III fone arca tacks cptasaakuitank aicesseanccnsap eel daies ill TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: American Insurance Association v. Clarke, 865 F.2d BIO (IVC. Civ, TORR) coccccccscscessesecesaxccercanecassecsds American Land Title Association v. Clarke, 772 F. Supp. 1353 (S.D. N.Y. 1991) wocceccccceeeceseeeeee American Land Title Association v. Clarke, 968 Be LGO (Sa Cir. TOD) rciviccsvecsscccsecessacereacsuce Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. Dimension Financial Corp., 474 U.S. 361 CRUE shieisossncneheanccatciacacanebehe See ura ee Clarke v. Securities Industry Association, 479 U.S. SOE CED s creresscomnncnusaniestahseaeee en Renee Crawford Fitting Company v. J.T. Gibbons Inc., 482 ath Se EMRE yhrserntnmeatanaie ee ee First National Bank of Eastern Arkansas v. Taylor, 907 F.2d 775 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. Ge GEREE tcematindanaaseie eee ee Independent Bankers Association of America v. Hei- mann, 613 F.2d 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 823 (1980) occ cccccccccceceeeee. Independent Insurance Agents of America v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 736 F.2d 468 (8th Cir. 1984) occ cccceccccee. Independent Insurance Agents of America v. Clarke. 955 F.2d 731 (D.C. Cir. 1992) oo cceeccccceceee. Saxon v. Georgia Association of Independent Insur- ance Agents, 399 F.2d 1010 (5th Cir. 1968) ... Securities Industry Association v. Clarke, 885 F.2d 1035 (2d Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1070 SRIND scipeceevch taubiaG erate tetas eee oe: Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co. v. Clarke, 786 F. Supp. 639 (S.D. Tex. 1991), appeal pending, No. 92-2010 (5th Cir.) ..cccccccccccccscscssesecccccceecs, Page 5,10 Table of Authorities Continued Page Statutes: Be Blethen Oe CO UOROND i iccSoiiiseassosessscgesscsoasavees passim ea Ai TOP h copesvarsvimcrsicnccianen ake ee passim Act of Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 461, 39 Stat. 752 RII