Coffin v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

129 federal appellate · 27 district · 45 state decisions

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

1. “the primary object of the statute was to protect the bank from the acts of its own servants.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Ruffin · Richardson v. United States

2. ““Tlie burden of proving Haughey and the defendants guilty as charged rests upon the government, and the burden does not shift from it. Haughey and the defendants are presumed to be innocent until their guilt in manner and form as charged in some count of the indictment is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. To justify you in returning a verdict of guilty, the evidence should be of such character as to overcome this presumption of innocence and to satisfy each one of you of the guilt of Ilaughey and the defendants as charged, to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gallot v. United States · Price v. United States

3. ““The jury were instructed that the fact that Miller received credit in 'his account on the books of the bank for checks drawn on that bank or on other banks constituted a flagrant misapplication of the funds of the Commercial Bank, within the meaning <5f section 5209; yet it is apparent that merely giving credit to Miller on the hooks of the bank for the amount of the checks did not lessen the funds held by the bank, nor in fact defraud the association in any form. To complete a misapplication of the funds of the bank, it was necessary that some portion thereof should be withdrawn from the possession or control of the bank, or a conversion in some form should be made thereof, so that the bank would be deprived of the benefit thereof. It is not necessary in all cases that the money should be actually withdrawn from, the bank. Thus if, by connivance between a bank official and a customer of the! bank, the latter is allowed to draw checks on the bank, when the drawer has not the funds to meet the checks, and the same are' 'given by the drawer to third parties in payment of claims due them, and the third parties, instead of getting the cash on the checks, have been credited up to their accounts in the bank, this completes the misapplication of the funds of the bank, because the ■bank has become bound for the payment of the sums thus credited to the third parties, and the result is just the same as though the holders of the checks had obtained the money thereon, and had subsequ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Johnson