Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 462 U.S. 611 - First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior De Cuba

First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior De Cuba’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

1,320
cited by 1,320 later decisions
18
cited 18 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

434 federal appellate · 173 district · 51 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,320 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Bram v. United States (1897), Saudi Arabia v. Nelson (1993)

434 federal appellate · 173 district · 51 state decisions — followed in 12 states

407019831990200020102020decided

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

reviewedBanco Para El Comercio Exterior De Cuba v. First National City Bank (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Cort v. Ash · Pepper v. Litton · Hilton v. Guyot · Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino · Verlinden B. v. v. Central Bank of Nigeria

Cited together with Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. · Verlinden B. v. v. Central Bank of Nigeria · Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc. · Saudi Arabia v. Nelson · Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson

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 1,320 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A typical government instrumentality, if one can be said to exist, is created by an enabling statute that prescribes the powers and duties of the instrumentality, and specifies that it is to be managed by a board selected by the government in a manner consistent with the enabling law. The instrumentality is typically established as a separate juridical entity, with the powers to hold and sell property and to sue and be sued. Except for appropriations to provide capital or to cover losses, the instrumentality is primarily responsible for its own finances. The instrumentality is run as a distinct economic enterprise; often it is not subject to the same budgetary and personnel requirements with which government agencies must comply.”
    23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “government instrumentalities established as juridical entities distinct and independent from their sovereign should normally be treated as such.”
    22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “where a corporate entity is so extensively controlled by its owner that a relationship of principal and agent is created, we have held that one may be held liable for the actions of the other.”
    19 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.