Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 164 U.S. 684 - Bushnell v. Leland

Bushnell v. Leland’s Empirical Analysis

164 U.S. 684 · 1897

Citation profile

239
cited by 239 later decisions
17
cited 17 times by the Supreme Court
23
states following
September 2019
most recently cited

75 federal appellate · 18 district · 76 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 239 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2019 · most notably McCray v. United States (1904), United States v. Ju Toy (1905)

75 federal appellate · 18 district · 76 state decisions — followed in 23 states

11701897190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Kennedy v. Gibson · Casey v. Galli · United States v. Knox

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

  1. ““All these alleged errors may be reduced to the single contention that under the national banking law the comptroller of the currency is without power to appoint a receiver to a defaulting or insolvent national bank, or to call for a ratable assessment upon the stockholders of such bank, without a previous judicial ascertainment of the necessity for the appointment of the receiver and of the existence of the liabilities of the bank, and that the lodgment of authority in the comptroller, empowering him either to appoint a receiver or to make a ratable call upon the stockholders, is tantamount to vesting that officer with judicial power in violation of the Constitution. All of these contentions have been long since settled, and are not open to further discussjon. ’ ’”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The attempt in the bill to vacate the appointment of the receiver made by the Comptroller of the Currency and to enjoin the collection of the assessment upon the shareholders authorized by him, must likewise fail. We are dealing here with the extent of the power of the Comptroller to appoint a receiver for an insolvent bank, and to call for a ratable assessment upon its shareholders under the Act of June 30, 1876, § 1, 12 U.S.C. § 191 ( 12 U.S.C.A. § 191 ) ; and it is settled that the determination as to the solvency of a national bank, and the necessity of an assessment against its shareholders, and the amount thereof, is committed exclusively to the judgment and discretion of the Comptroller, and it is not subject to judicial review.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The comptroller of the currency has power to appoint a receiver for an insolvent national bank and call for a ratable assessment upon the stockholders without a previous ascertainment of necessity for such action.””
    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.