Butler Receiver v. Coleman Same’s Empirical Analysis
124 U.S. 721 · 1888
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 8 district · 85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 172 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2014 · most notably State of Texas v. State of Florida (1939), Federal Land Bank of St Louis v. Briddy (1935)
34 federal appellate · 8 district · 85 state decisions — followed in 27 states
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 National Bank v. Colby · Tapley v. Goodsell · Carpenter v. Turrell · Price v. Coleman
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 172 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The act contemplates ratable distribution of the assets of an insolvent bank among its several creditors and the particular provision in question [12 U.S.C. Sec. 91] is in furtherance of that purpose.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage““[I]t necessarily follows that if there was no authority in law for the attachment, there could be none for taking the bond. If the attachment itself is illegal and therefore void [because it violates 12 U.S.C. § 91 ], so also must be the bond which takes its place.” Id. at 728 , 8 S.Ct. at 721 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Neither is the bond binding as a common-law bond. If the attachment had been valid, and the bond taken had not been in all respects such as the statute had required, it could nevertheless have been enforced as a common-law bond, because it was executed for a good consideration, and the object for which it was given had been accomplished. But here the difficulty is that there was no lawful attachment, and therefore no lawful authority for taking any bond whatever. The bond is consequently neither good under the statute nor at common law, because there is no sufficient foundation to support it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.