Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

219 U.S. 114

55 L. Ed. 117

Docket No. 445.

Shallenberger v. First State Bank of Holstein

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued December 7 and 8, 1910.

January 3, 1911

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1911-01-03

The facts, which involve the constitutionality of the banking act of Nebraská, creating a depositors’ guaranty fund, are stated in the opinion. Banking is a proper subject of legislative control. State ex rel. Woodmansee, 1 N. Dak. 245; Morse on Banking, 1; People v. Barton, 6 Cow. 290; People v. Insurance Co., 15 Johns. 358; People v. Brewster, 4 Wend. 498; Nance v. Hemphill, 1 Alabama, 551; Austin v. State, 10 Missouri, 591.

2 counsel of record

Relies on William Marbury v. James Madison · Henning Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Lawton v. Steele

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Guaranty Fund”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · 7–0 · Decided 1911-01-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1998 · most notably Nebbia v. People of State of New York (1934), Frost v. Corporation Commission (1929)

36 state decisions — followed in 14 states

190191119201930194019501960197019801990decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Messrs. Charles O. Whedon, Arthur F. Mullen, I. L. Albert, and Grant G. Martin for appellants.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 114-117 intentionally omitted]

Messrs. John Lee Webster and William V. Allen for appellees.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 117-120 intentionally omitted]

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

¶1

This is a suit by many banks to prevent the banking board of Nebraska from carrying out and enforcing an act similar to the Oklahoma statute just passed upon. It forbids banking except by a corporation formed under the act, and provides for a guaranty fund. The circuit court held the statute unconstitutional, and issued an injunction against the enforcement of it. 172 Fed. 999. For the reasons given in the foregoing case, the decree of the circuit court must be reversed.

¶2

Decree reversed.

/219/us/114 · .json · Public domain