Mid-Cal National Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank’s Empirical Analysis
590 F.2d 761 · 1979
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently July 2010
8 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on 17 Cal. 3d 425 - Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California · 15 Cal. 3d 40 - Weirum v. RKO General, Inc. · 21 Cal. 3d 671 - Sun'n Sand, Inc. v. United California Bank · Dotschay v. National Mutual Insurance Company · United States v. Howell
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The relationship between these banks contains none of the qualities that lead courts and commentators to find parties legally blame-worthy for failing to help another. No fiduciary or confidential nature to their relationship was alleged; they related at arm's length. Stockton was in no need of protection from Mid-Cal; it had computers and other means available to it to detect the kite, and was thus as able to protect itself from loss. To determine that in such a situation Mid-Cal owed a duty to discover the kite would be to alter radically the nature of banking and the general conduct of business. Such an alteration is neither necessary nor warranted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]hese two banks were competitors in the banking field and ordinarily banks deal with each other at arm’s length. The bill does not allege any circumstances or facts that tend to show that a confidential or fiduciary relationship existed between these two banks, neither does it show that there is any requirement in the banking field that one bank notify another of its discovery of a customer kiting checks. In the absence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship, or some other legal duty, First National Bank had no duty to inform Citizens National Bank that [the customer] was kiting checks.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“checks are drawn on one account and deposited in the other when neither account has any substantial funds.”
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.