United States v. Docherty’s Empirical Analysis
468 F.2d 989 · 1972
Citation profile
66 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently November 2012 · most notably United States v. J. Joseph Kennedy, United States of America v. Robert J. Myers, United States of America v. Lawrence F. Carlson (1977), United States v. Shively (1983)
66 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1005 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 656
Relies on Morissette v. United States · Screws v. United States · Spies v. United States · Bell v. United States · United States v. Murdock
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656 requires, so far as here relevant, a situation where a bank officer, director, agent or employee ‘embezzles, abstracts, purloins or willfully misapplies any of the moneys, funds or credits of such bank____” When a defendant is charged simply as an aider or abettor, submission to the jury is warranted only if there is enough evidence to show that he knew of such activity of the principal and desired to forward it.” 468 F.2d at 992 (emphasis added).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Wilful misapplication has been found, for example , 'when a bank employee knowingly engaged in a check “kiting” scheme for the benefit of depositors, United States v. Mullins, 355 F.2d 883 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 942 , 86 S.Ct. 1465 , 16 L.Ed.2d 540 (1966); when a bank employee paid money out to a customer on a check he knew was backed by insufficient funds and then concealed the overdraft, Logsdon v. United States, 253 F.2d 12 (6th Cir. 1958); when a bank officer loaned money without security knowing that the borrower could not repay, Robinson v. United States, 30 F.2d 25 (6th Cir. 1929); when a depositor repeatedly overdrew- his account, knowing that the branch manager was consistently ignoring this, Benchwick v. United States, 297 F.2d 330 (9th Cir. 1961); when a bank officer caused his bank to borrow from another and pocketed the proceeds, leaving his own bank only with a personal note of an employee of the lending bank which he had no reason to think would be paid, Hargreaves v. United States, 75 F.2d 68 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 295 U.S. 759 , 55 S.Ct. 920 , 79 L.Ed. 1701 (1935); and, as, we have recently held, when a bank officer pocketed the proceeds of loans knowingly issued on the strength of fraudulent loan applications, United States v. Fortunato, 402 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 933 , 89 S.Ct. 1205 , 22 L.Ed.2d 463 (1969).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“knew he was putting his own credit on the line, and it is not suggested that he lacked the means to repay.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.