Veix v. Sixth Ward Building & Loan Ass'n’s Empirical Analysis
310 U.S. 32 · 1940
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 48 district · 210 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 495 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably United States Trust Company of New York v. New Jersey (1977), United States v. Winstar Corp. (1996)
56 federal appellate · 48 district · 210 state decisions — followed in 27 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 Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell · Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · Sproles v. Binford · Noble State Bank v. Haskell · Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners
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 495 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When he purchased into an enterprise already regulated in the particular to which he now objects, he purchased subject to further legislation upon the same topic.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““With institutions of such importance to its economy, the State retains police powers adequate to authorize the enactment of statutes regulating the withdrawal of shares. Unquestionably for the future, the provisions of the 1932 Act would be effective. We think they were equally effective as to shares bought prior to the enactment of the statute, notwithstanding the provisions of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution that ‘No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Ob ligation. of Contracts . . . ’ This is so because the obligation of the Association to respond to the application for withdrawal was subject to the paramount police power. ’ ’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““When the 19-32 Act was passed commercial and savings hanks, insurance companies and building and loan associations were suffering heavy withdrawals. The liquid portion of their assets were being rapidly drained off by their customers, leaving the long term investments and depreciated assets as an inadequate source for payment of the remaining liabilities. An acceleration or a continuance of this tendency to withdraw available funds threatened a quick end to the ability of the institutions to meet even normal demands. Such threatened insolvency demands legislation for its control in the same way that liquidation after insolvency does. Such legislation may be classed as emergency in one sense but it need not be temporary.””
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.