Best Answer

The court rule in the case of Hagberg v California Federal Bank was that a private party cannot sue a federally chartered bank for violations of state law. The legal principle behind this is that federal law preempts state law when it comes to regulating federally-chartered banks.

User Avatar


6mo ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
More answers
User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago

The case of Hagberg v California Federal Bank contains so much legal mumbo jumbo that it would take a good lawyer to explain it instead of the following simplistic version. Ms Hagberg presented a Smith Barney check to a teller at California Federal Bank. The teller looked at the check and decided something looked wrong. Smith Barney's checks look perfect. That check did not look perfect. The teller called for management as she had been instructed to do in such a case. The manager called Smith Barney. Smith Barney said the check was stolen. The managers called the cops and described the woman as hispanic. The cops came and arrested the woman and took her to a room to interview her. Then Smith Barney called back and said the check was good. After that Ms Hagberg took the case to a civil rights court because of the way the bank management had described her to the cops. The appeal court determined that a persons description given to the cops is privileged information and not slander.

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What was the court rule and legal principle in the case of Hagberg v California Federal Bank?
Write your answer...
Still have questions?
magnify glass
Related questions

What is highest court in California?

The highest court not under Federal jurisdiction would be the California State Supreme Court.

Which principle of government allows the federal court system to the rule on both the constitutionally and meaning of a federal law?


What court is at the bottom level of the federal court system?

Federal district court, e.g., United States District Court for the Central District of California (C.D. Cal).

The sharing and division of power between state and federal court is called the principle of?

b h

Does California fall within the federal 9th'd Circuit Court of Appeals?


Is US District Court jurisdiction superior to that of the California Supreme Court?

When it comes to federal matters, yes, the US District Court is superior to the state court.

Can a person who live in California but commits a drug crime via federal express to Abilene TX be tried in Lubbock Tx when he had no contact whatsoever to Lubbock?

Yes, federal crime means you are tried in federal court. Any federal court

Martin v hunter's lessee?

In the case of Martin v. Hunter's Lessee in 1816, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted its authority to review state supreme court decisions involving federal law. This decision established the principle of federal court supremacy over state courts in matters concerning the interpretation of federal law.

Is Federal Court capitalized?

No, except at the beginning of a sentence because it isnot a propernoun.However, when used with a definitename, it should be capitalized.Example:the Supreme Court of California

What courts are in the federal court system?

federal district court, federal court of appeals court,and the U.S. supreme court.

Which principle was the focus of the U.S. Supreme court decision in Brown v. Board of education?

The principle the court focused on was the principle of racial segregation.

Which federal court has original jurisdiction over most cases that are heard in federal court?

Federal trial courts almost always have original jurisdiction in the federal system.