Scribd
Upload
13 views2 pages

Chase Manhattan Bank vs. Sailboat: Venue Waiver

The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Florida District Court of Appeal, and remanded the case to determine if the petitioner had waived the venue protection of the National Bank Act. Justice Stevens dissented, arguing that unlike the previous case the Court cited, the state courts here had not explained their rejection of the petitioner's venue claim, so remanding assumes they relied on grounds other than waiver without basis. Since the case was unworthy of full review, Justice Stevens would have simply denied certiorari.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
13 views2 pages

Chase Manhattan Bank vs. Sailboat: Venue Waiver

The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Florida District Court of Appeal, and remanded the case to determine if the petitioner had waived the venue protection of the National Bank Act. Justice Stevens dissented, arguing that unlike the previous case the Court cited, the state courts here had not explained their rejection of the petitioner's venue claim, so remanding assumes they relied on grounds other than waiver without basis. Since the case was unworthy of full review, Justice Stevens would have simply denied certiorari.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

429 U.S.

911
97 S.Ct. 300
50 L.Ed.2d 278

The CHASE MANHATTAN BANK


v.
SAILBOAT APARTMENT CORP. et al
No. 76-126

Supreme Court of the United States


November 1, 1976

On petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida


for the Third District.
Summary Disposition of the Court.
The petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the District Court of
Appeal of Florida is vacated, and the case is remanded for a determination
of whether petitioner has waived the protection of the venue provision of
the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. 94. See National Bank of North
America v. Associates of Obstetrics and Female Surgery, Inc., 425 U.S.
460, 96 S.Ct. 1632, 48 L.Ed.2d 92 (1976).
Mr. Justice STEVENS, with whom Mr. Justice BRENNAN joins,
dissenting.

The Court's action in this case is not supported by the precedent on which it
relies. In National Bank of North America, the Utah Supreme Court
erroneously held that 94 was "permissive and not exclusive." We remanded
because that court had not reached the waiver issue in its previous opinion. In
the present case, however, the state courts have given no explanation for their
rejection of petitioner's venue claim. A remand in this case can only rest on the
unwarranted assumption that the state courts relied on some ground other than
waiver. The presumption, however, should be that the state courts recognized
and relied on the strongest argument in favor of their holding, in this case, the
waiver argument.*

I am therefore unable to concur in the Court's summary action in this case.


Since this case is unworthy of plenary review, I would deny certiorari.

The waiver argument is based on the conduct of petitioner's alleged corporate


alter ego. Apparently the Court finds some possible merit in this argument;
otherwise, it would simply reject the argument summarily as it did the "local
action" argument in National Bank of America, supra, at n.*.

You might also like