Union Nat Bank of Chicago v. Bank of Kansas City’s Empirical Analysis
136 U.S. 223 · 1890
Citation profile
84 federal appellate · 25 district · 73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 299 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2012 · most notably Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley (1896), Porter v. Sabin (1893)
84 federal appellate · 25 district · 73 state decisions — followed in 23 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 Peters v. Bain · Wiswall v. Sampson · Detroit v. Osborne · Jewell v. Knight
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 299 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A receiver derives his authority as receiver from the act of the court appointing him, ... and the utmost effect of his appointment is to put the property from that time into his custody as an officer of the court for the benefit of the party ultimately proved to be entitled, and not to change the title to, or even the right of possession in, the property.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The question of the construction and effect of a statute of a State, regulating assignments for the benefit of creditors, is a question upon which the decisions of the highest court of the State, establishing a rule of property, are of controlling authority in the courts of the United States.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. May v. Tenney · Hardt v. Heidweyer“A debtor in Missouri,- under its legislation and adjudications thereon, may, though he be- insolvent at the time, prefer one or more of his creditors by securing them; but he cannot do it by an instrument conveying the whole of his property to pay one or more creditors. Instruments of the latter class will be construed as falling within the assignment laws, and as for the benefit of all creditors, whether named in the assignment or not,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. May v. Tenney
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.