BANK ONE CHICAGO, N. A. v. MIDWEST BANK & TRUST CO.

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
94-1175
Petitioner 
Bank One Chicago, N. A.
Respondent 
Midwest Bank & Trust Co.
Advocates
(Argued the cause for the respondent)
(Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioner, urging reversal)
(Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Tags
Term:
Facts of the Case 

The Expedited Funds Availability Act requires banks to make deposited funds available for withdrawal within specified time periods. The act provides for administrative enforcement and civil liability. After a BankOne Chicago customer deposited a check drawn on a Midwest Bank and Trust account, the check was forwarded, but returned unpaid because BankOne's endorsement stamp was illegible. Subsequently, when the check was resubmitted, the account did not have sufficient funds to cover the withdrawal. Bank One then sued Midwest Bank for failing to meet its obligations prescribed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) pursuant to the act. The District Court entered summary judgment for BankOne. The Court of Appeals, vacating the lower court's decision, ordered the action dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The appellate court held that the act authorizes original federal-court jurisdiction only when a "person other than [a] depository institution" sues a "depository institution," or when a depositor sues a bank.

Question 

Does the Expedited Funds Availability Act provide for federal-court jurisdiction only in suits between customers and banks?

Conclusion 
Decision: 9 votes for Bank One Chicago, N. A., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 12 U.S.C. 4010

No. In an opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that the act provides for federal-court jurisdiction not only in suits between customers and banks, but also in cases initiated by one bank against another bank. Justice Ginsburg wrote for the Court that section 4010 of the act authorizes claims for relief that are enforceable in federal court. Moreover, Justice Ginsburg continued, "it is implausible that Congress directed the Board to handle such disputes administratively, for [section 4010] does not explicitly confer adjudicatory authority on the Board, nor set forth the relevant procedures for resolution of private disputes." Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia wrote concurring opinions.

Cite this Page
BANK ONE CHICAGO, N. A. v. MIDWEST BANK & TRUST CO.. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 13 December 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1175>.
BANK ONE CHICAGO, N. A. v. MIDWEST BANK & TRUST CO., The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1175 (last visited December 13, 2014).
"BANK ONE CHICAGO, N. A. v. MIDWEST BANK & TRUST CO.," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed December 13, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1175.