First Nat Bank of Hartford Wis v. City of Hartford’s Empirical Analysis
273 U.S. 548 · 1927
Citation profile
55 federal appellate · 24 district · 86 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 251 later decisions (44 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2012 · most notably Sterling v. Constantin (1932), Nationsbank of North Carolina, N. A. v. Variable Annuity Life Insurance (1995)
55 federal appellate · 24 district · 86 state decisions — followed in 18 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 Truax v. Corrigan · Aetna Life Insurance v. Dunken · Mercantile Nat Bank of New York v. Mayor Etc of New York · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. North Dakota ex rel. McCue · Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. C. H. Albers Commission Co.
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 251 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“carry on the business of banking ... by ... negotiating promissory notes ... and other evidences of debt.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * That under Section 5219 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, of the United States, being Section 548 of Title 12 of the United States Code Annotated, and the laws of the United States in such cases made and provided the State of Alabama, its political subdivisions and the cities and municipalities therein, are prohibited from taxing complainant’s corporate shares or capital stock at a greater rate than is assessed upon other moneyed, capital in the hands of individual citizens of said State coming into competition with the business of complainant, complainant being, as aforesaid, a National Bank, organized and existing and operating under the National Banking Laws of the United States. “That the assessment of said taxes against the corporate stock of complainant in ■ the hands of and owned by its ■ stockholders is invalid and void because of illegal discrimination against complainant and its corporate stock and in favor of the moneyed capital of other persons, firms, corporations and associations coming in direct competition with complainant in the exercise of its legitimate purposes and business in lending money, discounting paper, and the like, in that such moneyed capital competing with complainant is not taxed or assessed for or liable foi* taxation under the laws of Alabama or of said County, or City, while the shares of capital stock of complainant are made liable to such assessments and taxes by the Statutes and Laws of said State, County and City. * * * “That ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We do not conceive that in order to establish the fact of competition it is necessary to show that national banks and competing investors solicit the same customers for the same loans or investments. It is enough as stated if both engage in seeking and securing in the same locality capital investments of the class now under consideration which are substantial in amount.”
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.