In the case of Citizens Banking Company v. Ravenna National Bank in 1913, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a national bank could be sued under state law for usury (charging illegally high interest rates). The plaintiff, Citizens Banking Company, had purchased several promissory notes from Ravenna National Bank and later discovered that these notes carried an unlawfully high rate of interest according to Ohio state law. They sought to recover twice the amount of interest paid on these notes as allowed by Ohio's usury statute. However, Ravenna National Bank argued that it was exempt from this statute due to its status as a national banking association. The court ruled in favor of Ravenna National Bank stating that while states have the power to control their own financial institutions regarding usurious practices; they do not possess such authority over federally chartered banks operating within their borders unless explicitly granted by Congress. Therefore, despite violating Ohio’s laws against usury, since no federal legislation existed at the time regulating maximum allowable interest rates for national banks or providing remedies for violations thereof; there were no grounds upon which Citizens Banking Company could sue.

In the dissenting opinion for Citizens Banking Company v. Ravenna National Bank, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Ravenna National Bank was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made by the trial court which should have resulted in a reversal of its judgment. They contended that Citizens Banking Company had not been given an adequate opportunity to present evidence and defend itself against allegations brought forth by Ravenna National Bank. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of banking laws related to this case, arguing instead for a stricter reading of these statutes which would have favored Citizens Banking Company’s position.