ARNOLD TOURS, INC., ET AL.
v.
CAMP ET AL.
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.
National banks may be subject to competition from travel agents challenging administrative rulings that permit banks to offer travel services.
Independent travel agents sued the Comptroller of the Currency and a national bank, alleging they lost business due to a ruling allowing national bank…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Zone Of Interests Test cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Petitioners are 42 independent travel-agents doing business in Massachusetts. They ask for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Comptroller of the Currency and the South Shore National Bank. They seek to invalidate a ruling by the Comptroller that, incidental to their banking. services, national banks may provide travel services for their customers.1 Petitioners allege that as a result they have lost substantial business and profits and stand to lose even greater business in the future. They contend the Comptroller exceeded his authority when he authorized national banks to provide travel services. The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing and the Court of Appeals affirmed. 408 F. 2d 1147 (CAI 1969.). Following our decisions last Term in Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U. S. 160, and Barlow v. Collins, 397 U. S. 159, we vacated and remanded the case for reconsideration (397 U. S. 315) and the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its previous decision.
Here, as in Data Processing, we are concerned with § 4 of the Bank Service Corporation Act, 76 Stat. 1132, 12 U. S. C. § 1864.2 In Data Processing we did not rely on any legislative history showing that Congress desired to protect data processors alone from competition.3 Moreover, we noted a growing trend “toward enlargement of the class of people'who may protest administrative action.” 397. U. S., at 154. We held that § 4 “arguably brings a competitor within the zone of interests protected by it.” Id., at 156. Nothing in the opinion limited § 4 to protecting only competitors in the data-processing field. When national banks begin to provide travel services for their customers, they compete with travel agents no less than they'compete with data processors when they, provide data-processing services to their -customers.4 Accordingly the writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Harlan would set the case for argument.
Paragraph 7475 of the Comptroller’s Manual for National Banks provides: “Incident to those powers vested in them under 12 U. S. C. .24, national banks may provide travel services for their customers and receive compensation therefor. Such services may include the sale of trip insurance and the rental of automobiles, as agent for a local rental service. In connection therewith, national banks may advertise, develop, and extend such travel services for the purpose of attracting customers to the bank.”
“No bank service corporation may engage in any activity other than the performance of bank services for banks.”
The only legislative history of the Bank Service Corporation Act mentioned in the opinion was that § 4 was a “ ‘response t.o the fears expressed by a few senators, that without such a prohibition, the bill would have -enabled “banks to engage in a nonbanking activity,” S. Rep. No. 2105 [87th Cong;, 2d-Sess., 7-12] (Supplemental views of Senators Proxmiire, Douglas, and Neuberger), and thus constitute “a serious exception to the accepted public policy which strictly limits banks to banking.” .(Supplemental views of . Senators Muskie and Clark).’ ” 397 U. S., at 155.
The final question under Data Processing, whether judicial review of the administrative decision has been precluded,' was specifically' Tesolved against the Comptroller in that case. 397 U, S., at 157.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (39 total)
-
BAY Area News, Inc. v. POE, 364 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…tes Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 106 Forsyth Corp. v. Bishop, 482 F. 2d 280 (5th Cir. 1973). The court specifically noted in its opinion that the Athens city ordinance did not violate the first amendment. . Compare Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 91 S.Ct. 158, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971) with Jones v. Kirkman, 138 So. 2d 513 (Fla.1962) and Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Argeros, 313 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).…
-
Simon v. E. Ky. Welf. Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (U.S. 1976)…complaint in Data Processing alleged injury that was directly traceable to the action of the defendant federal official, for it complained of injurious competition that would have been illegal without that action. Accord, Arnold Tours, Inc. v. Camp, 400 U. S. 45 (1970); Investment Co. Institute v. Camp, 401 U. S. 617, 620-621 (1971). Similarly, the complaint in Data Processing’s companion case of Barlow v. Collins, 397 U. S. 159 (1970), was sufficient because it alleged extortionate demands by plaintiffs’ l…
-
United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (U.S. 1974)…Collins, 397 U. S. 159 (1970), with, e. g., Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U. S. 118 (1939), and Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U. S. 464 (1938). See also Investment Co. Institute v. Camp, 401 U. S. 617 (1971); Arnold Tours, Inc. v. Camp, 400 U. S. 45 (1970). Noneconomic interests have been recognized. E. g., Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186 (1962); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727 (1972). A stringently limited exception for federal taxpayer standing has been created. Flast v. Cohen, supra. The c…
Previewing 3 of 39 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1970)
- Arnold Tours, Inc. v. Camp, 408 F.2d 1147 (1st Cir. 1969)
- Arnold Tours, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 315 (U.S. 1970)
- Hogan v. James et ux., 397 U.S. 315 (U.S. 1970)