NOBLE STATE BANK
v.
HASKELL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court denied a petition for rehearing in a case involving whether Oklahoma could require state-chartered banks to contribute to a depositor protection fund as a condition of maintaining their banking license. The Court held that such a condition could be imposed because the payment requirement was not an unconditional taking of property but rather a voluntary condition attached to the privilege of conducting banking business under state charter.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.
Leave to file an application for rehearing is asked in this cáse. We see no reason to grant it, but, as the judgment delivered, ante, p. 104, seems to have conveyed a wrong impression of the opinion of the court in some details, we add a few words to what was said when the case was decided. We fully understand the practical importance of the question and the very powerful argument that can be made against the wisdom of the legislation, but on that point we have nothing to say, as it is not our concern.. Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, Strickley v. Highland Boy Mining Co., 200 U. S. 527, etc., were cited to establish, not that property might be taken for a private use, but that ámong the public uses for which it might be taken were some which, if looked at only in their immediate aspect, according to the proximate effect of the taking, might seem to be private. This case, in our opinion, is of that sort. The analysis of the police power, whether correct or not, was intended to indicate an interpretation of what has taken place in the past not to give a new or wider scope to the power. The propositions with regard to it, however; in any form, are rather in the nature of preliminaries. For in this case there is' no out and out unconditional taking at all. The payment can be avoided by going out of the banking business, and is required only as a condition for keeping on, from corporations created by the State. We have given what we deem sufficient reasons for holding that such a condition may be imposed.
Leave to file petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Meyer v. State of Neb., 262 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1923)
-
Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1917)
-
Patterson v. Ga. Pac., LLC, 38 F.4th 1336 (11th Cir. 2022)…there should be a manager exception. But however “practical” the policy considerations might be, making pronouncements about the prudence of the parties’ policy preferences is not within the proper purview of judges. See Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 575, 580 (1911) (on rehearing) (Holmes, J.) (“We fully under- stand . . . the very powerful argument that can be made against the wisdom of the legislation, but on that point we have nothing to say, as it is not our concern.”). What we have said before…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (17 total)
- Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (U.S. 1886)
- Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (U.S. 1886)
- Chicago v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (U.S. 1897)
- Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1876)
- Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1902)
- Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133 (U.S. 1894)
- Chicago v. People of the State of Ill. Ex rel. Drainage Comm'rs, 200 U.S. 561 (U.S. 1906)
- Clark v. Nash, 198 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1905)
- Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403 (U.S. 1896)
- Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1906)