State of Illinois Ex Rel. Richard K. Lignoul, Commissioner of Banks and Trust Companies, State of Illinois, Cross-Appellant v. Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, Cross-Appellee. State of Illinois Ex Rel. Richard K. Lignoul, Commissioner of Banks and Trustcompanies, State of Illinois, Cross-Appellant v. The First National Bank of Chicago, Cross-Appellee’s Empirical Analysis
536 F.2d 176 · 1976
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 1997
9 federal appellate · 4 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
Relies on First National Bank in Plant City v. Dickinson · United States v. De Georgia · Independent Bankers Ass'n of America v. Smith · Transport Indemnity Company v. Seib
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[T]he district court concluded that a card inserted into the [ATM] machine to secure money was not the cashing of a check within the meaning of U.C.C. or in the common understanding of check cashing. We cannot agree. As was said in [Independent Banks Association of America v. Smith , 534 F.2d 921 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied , 429 U.S. 941 , 97 S.Ct. 166 , 50 L.Ed.2d 141 (1976)] this `is exalting form over substance — exactly what the Supreme Court instructed us not to do' in First National Bank v. Dickinson (Plant City) , 396 U.S. 122 at 137, 90 S.Ct. 337 [at 345], 24 L.Ed.2d 312 (1969). The check is merely the means used by the bank to attain the desired objective, i.e. , the payment of the money to its customer. The card serves the same purpose as the check. It is an order on the bank. Any order to pay which is properly executed by a customer, whether it be check, card or electronic device, must be recognized as a routine banking function when used as here. The relationship between the bank and its customer is the same. . . . Just as a transfer of funds by cable or telegraph is in law a check, Louie v. Chase National Bank , 42 N.Y.S.2d 205 (Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co. 1943), despite the non-negotiability of the cable, the card here for the purpose of withdrawing cash is a check. What must be remembered is that the foundation of the relationship between the bank and its customer is the former's agreement to pay out the customer's money according to the latter's order. See, White and Summe”
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.