{
  "id": 8548508,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ON RELATION OF THE BANKING COMMISSION, and FIRST-CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. CABARRUS BANK & TRUST COMPANY and FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ALBEMARLE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Cabarrus Bank & Trust Co.",
  "decision_date": "1972-06-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 7210SC291",
  "first_page": "183",
  "last_page": "185",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 N.C. App. 183"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 747",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 108",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573875
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0108-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 S.E. 2d 854",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 232",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548715
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/12/0232-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 S.E. 2d 625",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 112",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547668
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/12/0112-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "409 F. 2d 1086",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2199719
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/409/1086-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 S.E. 2d 9",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 283",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548887
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/14/0283-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 295,
    "char_count": 5079,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.52,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.205857561579845
    },
    "sha256": "7f06d3913a7e49229e4c531f52d9ffd4ab62aed10255ff8334f51a2d977a0a2f",
    "simhash": "1:d3d384f3c6dd4ebe",
    "word_count": 807
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:51.335715+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Campbell concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ON RELATION OF THE BANKING COMMISSION, and FIRST-CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. CABARRUS BANK & TRUST COMPANY and FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ALBEMARLE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nAppellants contend that G.S. 53-62 (b) requires that an applicant bank establish the existence of specific, unmet banking needs as a prerequisite to the establishment of a branch bank. We do not agree with this contention.\nAppellants\u2019 contention relates to the \u201cmeet the needs and promote the convenience of the community\u201d proviso of G.S. 53-62 (b). This contention was expressly disavowed by this court in the recent decision rendered in Banking Comm. v. Bank, 14 N.C. App. 283, 188 S.E. 2d 9 (1972), and the reasoning applied in that case applies equally to this case. In that case the court said: \u201cWith respect to banking, what will serve the needs of the community is also, to a substantial degree, an administrative question involving a multiplicity of factors which cannot be given inflexible consideration.\u201d\nOur decisions find support in the case of First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company v. Camp, 409 F. 2d 1086 (1969). In that case the court held, inter alia, that the Comptroller of the Currency in authorizing branch offices of national banks in North Carolina is bound by the \u201cneed and convenience\u201d and \u201csolvency of the branch\u201d criteria of North Carolina law, G.S. 53-62 (b). With respect to applying \u201cneed and convenience,\u201d the court said, page 1091: \u201cIn considering whether the Comptroller properly construed and applied North Carolina\u2019s \u2018need and convenience\u2019 and \u2018solvency of the branch\u2019 criteria, we note at the outset the absence of any definitive State interpretation of these nebulous concepts.\u201d The court continued at 1093: . . (W) e underscore that neither the North Carolina statute nor any decided cases provides any degree of specificity as to the factors, proof of which would show the presence or absence of \u2018need and convenience\u2019 for a new branch bank. . . . Nor do we find error in the Comptroller\u2019s failure to make definitive specific findings with regard to the service area, economic feasibility, public needs, and quality and quantity of existing service.\u201d\nAppellants contend that there is insufficient evidence to support the findings and conclusions of the commission and that the approval of the application was arbitrary, capricious and in excess of statutory authority. These same contentions were rejected by this court in Banking Comm. v. Bank, 12 N.C. App. 112, 182 S.E. 2d 625 (1971) and no useful purpose would be served in restating the reasoning set forth there. We find nothing in the case at bar to distinguish it from the other cases in which this court upheld the commission\u2019s approval for branch banks. See First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company v. Camp, supra; Banking Comm. v. Bank, 14 N.C. App. 283, 188 S.E. 2d 9 (1972); Banking Comm. v. Bank, 12 N.C. App. 232, 182 S.E. 2d 854 (1971), reversed and remanded, 281 N.C. 108, 187 S.E. 2d 747 (1972) for failure to consider two branches of same bank separately; Banking Comm. v. Bank, 12 N.C. App. 112, 182 S.E. 2d 625 (1971).\nWe have carefully considered the other contentions asserted by appellants but likewise find them to be without merit. Our thorough review of the record impels the conclusion that the findings of the commission are supported by competent, material and substantial evidence, which findings fully support the conclusions of law.\nThe judgment appealed from is\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge Mallard and Judge Campbell concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ward, Tucker, Ward & Smith by David L. Ward, Jr., and J. Troy Smith, Jr., for plaintiff appellee, First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company.",
      "Sanford, Cannon, Adams & McCullough by Hugh Cannon and E. D. Gaskins, Jr., for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ON RELATION OF THE BANKING COMMISSION, and FIRST-CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. CABARRUS BANK & TRUST COMPANY and FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ALBEMARLE\nNo. 7210SC291\n(Filed 28 June 1972)\n1. Banks and Banking \u00a7 1\u2014 establishment of branch bank \u2014 prerequisites\nG.S. 53-62 (b) does not require that an applicant bank establish the existence of specific, unmet banking needs as a prerequisite to the establishment of a branch bank.\n2. Banks and Banking \u00a7 1\u2014 approval of branch bank \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThere was sufficient evidence to support the findings and conclusions of the Banking Commission in approving an application to establish a branch bank, and approval of the application was not arbitrary, capricious and in excess of statutory authority.\nAppeal by defendants from Bailey, Judge, in chambers in Raleigh, N. C., on 12 November 1971.\nPlaintiff First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company, a state chartered bank (First-Citizens), applied to the Commissioner of Banks (Commissioner) and the State Banking Commission (Commission) for authority to establish a branch bank in Albemarle, North Carolina. The commissioner recommended that the branch be approved and the commission approved the application. Cabarrus Bank & Trust Company and First National Bank of Albemarle, the protestant banks, appealed the case to superior court. Following a hearing the superior court affirmed the decision of the commission approving the application and the protestant banks appealed.\nWard, Tucker, Ward & Smith by David L. Ward, Jr., and J. Troy Smith, Jr., for plaintiff appellee, First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company.\nSanford, Cannon, Adams & McCullough by Hugh Cannon and E. D. Gaskins, Jr., for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0183-01",
  "first_page_order": 207,
  "last_page_order": 209
}