to conclude accords fully with its purpose of promoting national banks as institutions and of furthering their integrity and stability in appearance and reality. IV For the reasons stated above, we conclude that we must reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and must remand the cause to that court with directions to reverse the judgment of the superior court and remand the cause in turn to that court for further proceedings. It is so ordered. Werdegar, J., and Haning, J., concurred. 1 The “three circumstances” in which preemption of state law by federal law is fou to be the contrary “pronouncement” in Ana Leon T. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, supra, 823 F.2d at p. 931 (per curiam)); White v. Fed. Res. Bank, supra, 103 Ohio App.3d at pages 538-539 [660 N.E.2d at page 496] (<HOLDING>); id. at page 537 [660 N.E.2d at page 495]
holding to the effect that section 341 fifth as impliedly amended by title vii preempts state law to the extent but only to the extent that it conflicts holding to the effect that section 24 fifth has been impliedly amended by title vii holding to the effect that section 1432a as impliedly amended by title vii preempts state law without limitation as to only conflicting state law holding outside of the context of title vii or the adea to the effect that section 341 fifth preempts conflicting state law holding outside of the context of title vii or the adea that section 24 fifth preempts state law to the extent but only to the extent that it conflicts