Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 491 F.2d 225 - United States v. Dix

United States v. Dix’s Empirical Analysis

491 F.2d 225 · 1974

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
September 2005
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2005

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

501974198019902000decided

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. § 2113

Relies on United States v. Bass · Rewis v. United States · United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co. · Lubin v. United States · Murray v. Modoc State Bank

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

  1. “We conclude, based on Chapman, supra, and on the duty of care which the bank owes to its customers, that the bonds stolen here were in the “care” of the bank, even though this duty did not extend to requiring or permitting the bank to follow Malouf into the conference room where the coupon clipping chore was performed. In other words, the duties of care owed to Malouf and his property provide us with sufficient nexus to say the bonds at the time they were filched in the bank were in the bank’s care and Malouf’s care.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The language of the statute is broad. It covers thefts not only of property within the possession of the bank but also of property within the care, custody, control or management of the bank. We hold that when Mal-ouf [the employer] took his safe deposit boxes into the bank’s conference room to examine or otherwise deal with the contents of the boxes, those contents were within the care of the bank, and the theft of some of those items was a crime within the contemplation of § 2113(b).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The bank owes a duty of care to its customers, just as any business owes to its business invitees, to maintain its premises in a condition reasonably fit for the carrying on of the banking business. The duty extends to protection from unreasonable risk of harm by robbers or other potential assailants or thieves.”
    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.