Whitefield v United States

Whitefield was convicted under 18 USC 2113(e) based on forcing a woman to move about 4 to 9 feet with him as he was running from police after a bank robbery. He argued 2113(e) should be read to include a substantial distance requirement. The Court unanimously disagreed and affirmed. It held that “accompany” meant in 1934 to go with and had no distance requirement. It rejected Whitefield’s claim that the heavy penalties somehow change the meaning and further noted that not all bank robbers for people to go with them thus not all bank robbers will face the enhanced penalties.

Jesinoski v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Jesinioski sued Countrywide alleging failure to provide certain disclosures required by the Truth Lending Act. The district court dismissed ruling that, while Jesinoski gave written notice of intent to rescind within three years, the suit was not brought within the required three years. The Court unanimously reversed holding 15 USC 1635(a) by its plain terms only requires written notice and there is no distinction between rescission as of right, rescission based on faulty disclosures or failure to disclose.  The Court also rejected Countrywide’s argument that federal statutes must be construed to follow the closest common law analogue.