Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 282 U.S. 765 - Abie State Bank v. Bryan

Abie State Bank v. Bryan’s Empirical Analysis

282 U.S. 765 · 1931

Citation profile

166
cited by 166 later decisions
47
cited 47 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 6 district · 67 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 166 later decisions (47 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Coleman v. Thompson (1991), Michigan v. Long (1983)

9 federal appellate · 6 district · 67 state decisions — followed in 20 states

700193119401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Noble State Bank v. Haskell · Smith v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. · Ward v. Board of County Com'rs of Love County Okl · Old Colony Trust Company v. City of Omaha · Hanley v. Donoghue

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

  1. ““When the suit was brought, these banks were confronted with a situation which contained no promise of relief from the assessments for which the act, as it then existed, ^provided, and the cumulative effect of which was alleged to be disastrous. It was the special assessments under the old law that were definitely assailed. Under the modifying act of 1930, only three of these special assessments and two regular assessments remain effective; and, for the future, there is- a limitation of the obligation to a total annual assessment of two-tenths of one per cent, of average daily deposits instead of assessments aggregating six-tenths, as were made possible by the previous law. The future assessments, to this restricted amount, are limited to a period of ten years. This, obviously, is a change of great importance. The appellants sought an injunction, and their petition necessarily related to the assessments in December, 1928, and thereafter, as the payments previously made were not in any event recoverable by the banks. Considering the reduction in the extent of the obligation as to future assessments, we are unable to say that the statute in this modified form is confiscatory, or other than a reasonable method of liquidating the guaranty plan. In this view, the judgment of the supreme court of the state denying an injunction should be affirmed.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]t is incumbent upon this Court, when it is urged that the decision of the state court rests upon a non-federal ground, to ascertain for itself, in order that constitutional guarantees may appropriately be enforced, whether the asserted non-federal ground independently and adequately supports the judgment”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “We see no reason to doubt the power of the legislature to extricate the banks and the administration of the guaranty fund from the serious plight in which they were found under the operation of the old plan and to exercise a reasonable discretion in seeking this result.”
    1 later decision 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.