Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson
April 30, 2003 (02-306)
return to
case listing

Case Summary
Respondents took out a tax refund anticipation loan from Petitioners and later brought suit in state court alleging usury violations and other common law claims. Petitioners removed the case based on federal question jurisdiction. They argued that the National Bank Act (NBA) provided the exclusive remedy for claims of excessive interest against national banks and that Respondents' claims should be styled as federal claims under the doctrine of complete preemption. Respondents moved to remand, but the district court denied the motion and held that removal was proper. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed and held that 85 and 86 of the NBA do not completely preempt state-law usury claims and do not confer removal jurisdiction. The opinion of the Eleventh Circuit is found at 287 F.3d 1038.

To see the opinion of the lower court, click here.


PREDICTED OUTCOME ACTUAL
OUTCOME
Forecasting
Model
Expert
One
Expert
Two
Expert
Three
5-4 to Reverse 7-2 to Affirm n/a n/a 7-2 to Reverse
VOTING TO REVERSE
Rehnquist
O'Connor
Scalia
Kennedy
Thomas
Stevens
Ginsburg
Rehnquist
Stevens
O'Connor
Kennedy
Souter
Ginsburg
Breyer
VOTING TO AFFIRM
Stevens
Souter
Ginsburg
Breyer
Rehnquist
O'Connor
Scalia
Kennedy
Souter
Thomas
Breyer
Scalia
Thomas

return to case listing