Gianakas v. Siensa’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “[T]he Seventh Circuit ... observed that the CBCA disclosure and approval provisions appear ‘to be aimed at the protection of the depositors of the bank, not of its shareholders, as well as the protection of the general public against monopolization of the banking industry.’ [Indiana National Corp. v. Rich, 712 F.2d 1180, 1186 (7th Cir.1983) ]. Similarly, the Ninth Circuit, directly addressing the issue of the existence of a private right of action, held that the first three criteria of the Cort v. Ash test were not satisfied. The Ninth Circuit held that: ‘sections [§ 1817 and § 1818(a) ] were not intended for the special benefit of the shareholders, there is no indication that Congress intended to create a remedy for the special benefit of the shareholders, and that a private remedy for the shareholders would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme.’ Harmsen v. Smith, 542 F.2d 496, 503 (9th Cir.1976).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 723 F. Supp. 1501 - National Bank of Georgia v. First National Bank Holding Corp.