United States v. Kearns’s Empirical Analysis
595 F.2d 729 · 1978
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably United States v. Kensington Hospital (1991), End of the Road Trust Ex Rel. Fruehauf Trailer Corp. v. Terex Corp. (In Re Fruehauf Trailer Corp.) (2000)
15 federal appellate · 7 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 12 U.S.C. § 635 (Banking and Related Programs Authorization Adjustment Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1345
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · Jenkins v. McKeithen · Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States · Illinois v. City of Milwaukee
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If it be once assumed that the defendant Carter did secretly receive from Greene and Gaynor a proportion of the profits gained by them in the execution of the contracts in question, the right of the United States in equity to a decree against him for the share so received is made out. It is immaterial if that appears whether the complainant was able to show any specific abuse of discretion, or whether it was able to show that it had suffered any actual loss by fraud or otherwise. It is not enough for one occupying a confidential relation to another, who is shown to have secretly received a benefit from the opposite party, to say, “You cannot show any fraud, or you cannot show that you have sustained any loss by my conduct.” Such an agent has the power to conceal his fraud and hide the injury done his principal. It would be a dangerous precedent to lay down as law that unless some affirmative fraud or loss can be shown, the agent may hold on to any secret benefit he may be able to make out of his agency. The larger interests of public justice will not tolerate, under any circumstances, that a public official shall retain any profit or advantage which he may realize through the acquirement of an interest in conflict with his fidelity as an agent. If he takes any gift, gratuity, or benefit in violation of his duty, or acquires any interest adverse to his principal, without a full disclosure, it is a betrayal of his trust and a breach of confidence, and he must account to his pri”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The purpose of the civil remedy is not to restore particular funds to the Government, but to provide a means of enforcing the loyalty of its agents. The action pursued here is a proper tool, based on common law notions of principal-agent relations, for controlling the possible loss of impartial public administration.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Valid policy concerns underlie the insistence that a plaintiff in an action for breach of fiduciary duty need not demonstrate actual damage or abuse of office.”
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.