Community Bankers Assn. v. Consolidated Equity Corp.

Community Bankers Assn. v. Consolidated Equity Corp.
1999 OK 70
990 P.2d 234
70 OBJ 2236
Case Number: 92060
Decided: 07/13/1999
Mandate Issued: 08/26/1999
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

COMMUNITY BANKERS ASSOCIATION of Oklahoma, Appellant,
v.
CONSOLIDATED EQUITY CORPORATION, First American Bank and Trust Company, Purcell, Oklahoma, etc. Appellees.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SIMMS, J:

¶1  The issue in this appeal is whether

¶2  This precise issue was recently decided by this Court in Community Bankers Association of Oklahoma v. Oklahoma State Banking Board, Case No. 91,465, 1999 OK 24, ___ P2d ___(1999), and determined adversely to the position of the Banking Board and appellees as we held that §502(H) does not create an exception from branch banking restrictions for bank holding companies. The Order of the Banking Board is therefore unlawful insofar as it approves the establishment of a branch bank at a location prohibited by law and must be reversed.

¶3  By previous order of the Court, the following appeals were made companion cases and were retained for disposition by this Court as they present the same question :

92,060 Community Bankers Assn. et al., v. Consolidated Equity, et al.

92,061 Community Bankers Assn. v. First Midwest Bancorp Inc., etc.

92,062 In the Matter of the combined applications of Farmers & Merchants Bancshares, Inc. and Farmers & Merchants Bank, Oklahoma City,etc.

92,063 In the Matter of the combined application of BancFirst Corporation and BancFirst, Oklahoma, etc.

92, 064 In the matter of the Application of First Fidelity Bancorp, Inc., Oklahoma City, etc.

92,227 Spiro State Bank and Community Bankers Association v. First Poteau Corporation, Poteau State Bank, et al.

92,310 Community Bankers Association of Oklahoma v. The Oklahoma State Banking Board, BancFirst Corporation and BancFirst, Oklahoma (real party in interest).

¶4  The Order of the Banking Board is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

¶5  SUMMERS, C.J., HARGRAVE, V.C.J., HODGES, LAVENDER, SIMMS, OPALA, KAUGER, and WATT, JJ., CONCUR.

¶6  WILSON, J., CONCURS BY REASON OF STARE DECISIS.