DESCRIPTION FORECASTS CASES DATA MANUSCRIPTS   CONTRIBUTORS

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