Manhattan Bank of Memphis v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
130 U.S. 267 · 1889
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 7 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2011 · most notably Seminole Nation v. United States (1942), 131 S. Ct. 1866 - CIGNA Corp. v. Amara (2011)
9 federal appellate · 7 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 11 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 Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · National Bank v. Insurance Co. · Smith v. Ayer · National Bank v. Graham · Shaw v. Spencer
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Knowing, from what passed between Mass and Juda, that the bonds were to be used to raise money for the benefit of'Walker Sons & Company, and knowing that such use was an improper disposition of the bonds unless the transaction wais affirmiatively and directly sanctioned by the plaintiff, the defendant became a party to the misappropriation of the bonds. It is immaterial, in this-view, whether or not the defendant received any portion of the money loaned by the Bank of Commerce on the security of the bonds.” Manhattan Bank v. Walker, 130 U. S. 267 , 9 S. Ct. 519 , 32 L. ed. 959.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We are of opinion that the execution of the receipt or certificate in question and its transmission by mail direct by the defendant to the plaintiff created the relation of bailor and bailee between her and the defendant, and made it an act of gross negligence for the defendant to deliver or dispose of or appropriate the securities in question on the sole request of Juda, and without her direct authority.””
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.