Fleishhacker v. Blum’s Empirical Analysis
109 F.2d 543 · 1940
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently September 2001 · most notably Burnham Chemical Co. v. Borax Consolidated, Ltd. (1948), Shinn v. Edwin Yee, Ltd. (1976)
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 24 · 12 U.S.C. § 71 · 12 U.S.C. § 71A
Relies on Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Smyth v. Ames · Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad · Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. · Carter v. Carter Coal Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a bank officer who receives a bonus or other consideration for procuring a loan of the bank’s funds commits a breach of trust, and that the consideration so paid belongs to the bank and may be recovered by it ... even though the bank has suffered no damage and even though the officer may have acted in good faith.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the discharge of his high trust the law holds a responsible agent ... to standards of probity and fidelity more lofty than those of 'the market place'. These high standards this court is not disposed to whittle down.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘Discovery’ within the meaning of the statute, 15 U.S.C.A. § 78ec(b), quoted in footnote 2, supra, is to be determined, we think, according to an objective standard; that is, ‘discovery’ means either actual knowledge or notice of facts which, in the exercise of due diligence, would have led to actual knowledge of the violation. The district court did not err in holding that both the appellant and the appellee could, by reasonable diligence, have known of the errors in the account more than one year before the action was brought.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.