Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. MCorp Financial, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
231 federal appellate · 86 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 742 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Celotex Corporation v. Edwards (1995), Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich (1994)
231 federal appellate · 86 district · 7 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedMCorp Financial, Inc. v. Board of Governors Federal Reserve System of the United States (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 12 U.S.C. § 1818 · 12 U.S.C. § 1841 (§ 2 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956) · 12 U.S.C. § 1844 (§ 5 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956) · 12 U.S.C. § 371C (§ 23a of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) · 12 U.S.C. § 3901 (Foreign Debt Reserving Act of 1989) · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 29 U.S.C. § 159 (§ 9 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Leedom v. Kyne · Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians · Switchmen's Union of North America v. National Mediation Board · Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 11
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 742 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“meaningful and adequate means of vindicating its statutory rights,”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“except as otherwise provided in this section no court shall have jurisdiction to affect by injunction or otherwise the issuance or enforcement of any notice or order under this section, or to review, modify, suspend, terminate, or set aside any such notice or order.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Petitioner] contends that in order for § 362(b)(4) to obtain, a court must first determine whether the proposed exercise of police or regulatory power is legitimate and that, therefore, in this litigation the lower courts did have the authority to examine the legitimacy of the [agency’s] actions and to enjoin those actions. We disagree. [Petitioner’s] broad reading of the stay provisions would require bankruptcy courts to scrutinize the validity of every administrative or enforcement action brought against a bankrupt entity. Such a reading is problematic, both because it conflicts with the broad discretion Congress has expressly granted many administra tive entities and because it is inconsistent with the limited authority Congress has vested in bankruptcy courts.”
11 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.