Kerfoot v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank’s Empirical Analysis
218 U.S. 281 · 1910
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 17 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2014 · most notably Hopkins Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Cleary (1935), Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. United States (1928)
22 federal appellate · 17 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 17 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 Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. · National Bank v. Matthews · California Bank v. Kennedy · Waters-Pierce Oil Company v. State of Texas · Scott v. Deweese
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“although the statute by clear implication forbids a national bank from making a loan upon real estate, the security is not void and it cannot be successfully assailed by the debtor or by subsequent mortgages because the bank was without authority to take it; and the disregard of the provisions of the act of Congress upon that subject only lays the bank open to proceedings by the Government for exercising powers not conferred by law,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““But while the purpose of this transaction was not one of those described in the statute for which a national bank may purchase and hold real estate, it does not follow that the deed was a nullity, and that it failed to convey title to the property. “In the absence of a clear expression of legislative intention to the contrary, a conveyance of real estate to a corporation for a purpose not authorized by its charter is not void, but voidable, and the sovereign alone can object. Neither the grantor nor his heirs nor third persons can impugn it upon the ground that the grantee has exceeded its powers.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.