Colorado Nat Bank Denver v. Bedford’s Empirical Analysis
310 U.S. 41 · 1940
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1996 · most notably Anderson Nat Bank v. Luckett (1944), United States v. Williams (1995)
16 federal appellate · 56 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 Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. · James v. Dravo Contracting Co. · McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining 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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It was decided * * * that the state in a legal proceeding against the shareholder could have garnisheed the bank and that because the bank was a federal instrumentality was no reason for not requiring it to collect and pay over the money from the shareholder." (Emphasis supplied)”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * persons rendering or performing the services are required ‘as far as practicable, [to] add the tax imposed * * * to the value of services or charges showing such tax as a separate and distinct item and when added such tax shall constitute a part of such value of service or charge, shall be a debt from the user to the person rendering or performing service until paid, and shall be recoverable at law in the same manner as other debts.’ * * * the person rendering the service [was] forbidden to hold out directly or indirectly that he [would] assume or absorb the tax.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * upon the services specified in the act, a percentage tax based upon the value of the services rendered or performed by any person subject to its provisions. “* * * [the] tax [was] equivalent to two per cent of the value of services rendered by ‘banks, finance companies, trust companies and depositories * * *.’ The person rendering the services ‘shall be liable and responsible for the payment of the entire 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.