Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 302 U.S. 272 - Willing v. Binenstock

Willing v. Binenstock’s Empirical Analysis

302 U.S. 272 · 1937

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
February 1978
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1978 · most notably Manual De J. Gomez v. Jerry v. Wilson, Chief of Police (1973), Byrd v. Lane (1968)

25 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

14019371940195019601970decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedF. A. D. Andrea, Inc. v. Radio Corp. (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 12 U.S.C. § 194

Relies on Swift v. Tyson · Burgess v. Seligman · Scott v. Armstrong · Mutual Life Ins Co of New York v. Johnson · Trainor Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “And it is insisted that the assets of the bank existing at the time of the act of insolvency include all its property, without regard to any existing liens thereon or set-offs thereto. "We do not regard this position as tenable. Undoubtedly any disposition by a national bank, being insolvent or in contemplation of insolvency, of its choses in action, securities, or other assets, made to prevent their application to the payment of its circulating notes, or to prefer one creditor to another, is forbidden; but liens, equities or rights arising by express agreement, or implied from the nature of the dealings between the parties, or by operation of law, prior to insolvency and not in contemplation thereof, are not invalidated. The provisions of the act are not directed against all liens, securities, pledges, or equities, whereby one creditor may obtain a greater payment than another, but against those given or arising after or in contemplation of insolvency. Where a set-off is otherwise valid, it is not perceived how its allowance can be considered a preference, and it is clear that it is only the balance, if any, after the set-off is deducted, which can justly be held to form part of the assets of the insolvent. The requirement as to ratable dividends is to make them from what belongs to the bank, and that which at the time of the insolvency belongs of right to the debtor does not belong to the bank.”
    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.