Bowerman v. Hamner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

60 federal appellate · 10 district · 46 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 161 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Directors cannot in justice to those who deal with the bank shut their eyes to what is going on around them.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Butcher · Federal Deposit Insurance v. Berry

2. ““That ordinarily prudent and diligent men, accepting election to membership in a bank directorate, would not willfully absent" themselves from directors’ meetings for years together as Bowerman did cannot be doubted; that a director who never makes, or causes to be made, any examination whatever of the books or papers of the bank, to determine its condition and the way in which it is being conducted, does not exercise ordinary care and prudence in the management of the affairs of the bank is equally clear; and that Bowerman, when guilty of neglect in both of these respects, did not exercise the diligence which prudent men would usually exercise" in ascertaining the condition of the business of the bank or a reasonable control and supervision over its affairs and officers is likewise beyond discussion. He cannot be shielded from liability because of want of knowledge of wrongdoing on his part, since that ignorance was the result of gross inattention in the discharge of his voluntarily assumed and sworn duty.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gamble v. Brown · Boyd v. Applewhite

3. “In any view the degree of care to which these defendants were bound is that which ordinarily prudent and diligent men would exercise under similar circumstances.... Without reviewing the various decisions on the subject, we hold that directors must exercise ordinary care and prudence in the administration of the affairs of a bank, and that is something more than officiating as figure-heads. They are entitled under the law to commit the banking business, as defined, to their duly-authorized officers, but this does not absolve them from the duty of reasonable supervision, nor ought they to be permitted to be shielded from liability because of knowledge of wrongdoing, if that ignorance is the result of gross inattention....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 833 F. Supp. 1545 - Federal Deposit Insurance v. Gonzalez-Gorrondona