Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 121 U.S. 27 - Richmond v. Irons

Richmond v. Irons’s Empirical Analysis

121 U.S. 27 · 1887

Citation profile

577
cited by 577 later decisions
37
cited 37 times by the Supreme Court
34
states following
December 1995
most recently cited

189 federal appellate · 34 district · 175 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 577 later decisions (37 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1995 · most notably Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. (1911), Samuel Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Company

189 federal appellate · 34 district · 175 state decisions — followed in 34 states

1580188718901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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

Relies on William Shields v. Robert R Barrow · National Bank v. Insurance Co. · Scovill v. Thayer · Terry v. Anderson

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 577 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In the case of involuntary liquidation under the supervision of the Comptroller of the Currency, the receiver appointed by him is authorized and required, not only to collect and apply the proper assets of the bank to the payment of its debts, but also, so far as may be necessary, to enforce the individual liability of the shareholders. It thus appears that the enforcement of this liability is a part of the liquidation ,of the affairs of the bank; at least, so closely connected with it as to constitute but one continuous transaction. When, in the ease of voluntary liquidation, the proceeding is instituted by one or more creditors for the benefit of all, by means of the jurisdiction of a court of equity, there seems to be no reason why the nature of the proceeding should be considered as changed. The intention of Congress evidently was to provide ample and effective remedies in all the specified cases for the protection of the public and the payment of creditors, by the application of the assets of the bank and the enforcement of the liability of the stockholders. Admitting that this liability is not strictly an asset of the bank, because it could not be enforced for its benefit as a corporation nor in its name, yet it is treated as a means of creating a fund to be applied with and in aid of the assets of the bank towards the satisfaction of its obligations. The two subjects of applying the assets of the bank and enforcing the liability of the stockholders, however otherwise ”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““As all the shareholders are hound in that way to all the creditors, any proceeding to enforce this liability must he such as from its nature would enable the court to ascertain for what the stockholders ought to he made liable, 1o whom, and in what proportion as respects each other.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““By section 5220 it was also provided that ‘any association, may go into liquidation and be closed by the vote of its shareholders owning two-thirds of its stock.’ ””
    3 later decisions 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.