Awotin v. Atlas Exchange National Bank’s Empirical Analysis
295 U.S. 209 · 1935
Citation profile
66 federal appellate · 15 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 184 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co. (1942), Deitrick v. Greaney (1940)
66 federal appellate · 15 district · 58 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 Continental Wall Paper Company v. Louis Voight & Sons Company · California Bank v. Kennedy · Texas Pac Ry Co v. Pottorff · Logan County Nat Bank v. Townsend · Hitchcock v. Galveston
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 184 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * Tim petitioner, who was chargeable with knowledge of the prohibition of the statute, may not invoke an estoppel to impose a liability which the statute forbids. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Pottorff, 291 U. S. 245, 260 ; California Nat. Bank v. Kennedy, 167 U. S. 362 ; Concord First National Bank v. Hawkins, 174 U. S. 364, 369 ; First National Bank v. Converse, 200 U. S. 425, 439, 440 ; Merchants’ National Bank v. Wehrmann, 202 U. S. 295, 302 . * * * “The invalidity of the contract was not due to the mere absence of power in the bank to enter into it, in which ease restitution, not inequitable to the bank or inimical to the public interest, might be compelled. See Logan County Nat. Bank v. Townsend, supra, 74, 75; Hitchcock v. Galveston, 96 U. S. 341, 350 . The contract is invalid because it is within the broad sweep of the statute which by mandatory language sets up definite limits upon the liability which may be incurred by a national bank, in the course of its business of dealing in securities, by confining the business to buying and selling ‘without recourse.’ The phrase is broader than a mere limitation upon the power to contract, although embracing that limitation. It is a prohibition of liability, whatever its form, by way of ‘recourse’ growing out of the transaction of the business. See Bank of United States v. Owens, 2 Pet. 527, 537 ; Brown v. Tarkington, 3 Wall, 377, 381; Thomas v. City of Richmond, 12 Wall. 349, 356 ; Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Voight & Son”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Respondent, [the bank] by agreeing to repurchase the bonds at the same price petitioner had paid for them, plus their accrued interest, undertook to save petitioner harmless from all risk of loss on his purchase, as effectively as if it had indorsed the bonds without restriction or had guaranteed their payment at maturity. ’ ’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Provided, that the business of buying and selling investment securities shall hereafter be limited to buying and selling without recoiirse marketable obligations evidencing indebtedness of any person * * * or corporation, in the form of bonds, notes, and/or debentures, commonly known as investment securities.””
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.