Jump to Navigation

Dreher Tomkies LLP
Attorneys at Law
2750 Huntington Center
41 South High Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Telephone (614) 628-8000
Fax (614) 628-1600

Law Digests Online!
Firm Overview
Practice Areas
Attorney Profiles
Multistate Digests
Representative Clients
Resource Links
Firm Brochure
Contact Us
Save to My Favorites
Print this page
Alerts Contextual Image


In April, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found no clear congressional intent to permit removal under Sections 85 and 86 of the National Bank Act and thus determined Sections 85 and 86 do not completely preempt state usury claims. Anderson v. H&R Block, 287 F. 3d 1038 (11th Cir. 2002). The court stated that complete preemption is appropriate only when there is a clear showing of congressional intent to permit removal, which the court found lacking in regard to Sections 85 and 86. The court refused to follow the Eighth Circuit cases finding complete preemption without inquiring into congressional intent. The case involved state law usury claims relating to tax refund anticipation loans.

Defendants H&R Block, Inc. and Beneficial National Bank filed petitions for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on the question of complete preemption. 71 U.S.L.W. 3163 (Aug. 26, 2002) (No. 02‑306), 71 U.S.L.W. 3163 (Aug. 27, 2002) (No. 02‑312).

For more information regarding this Alert, please contact Darrell Dreher at (614) 628‑1601 or [email protected] or Elizabeth Anstaett at (614) 628‑1604 or [email protected] .