Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 678 F.2d 371 - Federal Deposit Insurance v. de Jesus Velez

Federal Deposit Insurance v. de Jesus Velez’s Empirical Analysis

678 F.2d 371 · 1982

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
7
states following
August 2006
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 14 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently August 2006 · most notably Beighley v. Federal Deposit Insurance (1989), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Merchants National Bank of Mobile (1984)

24 federal appellate · 14 district · 11 state decisions

560198219902000decided

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 D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance · Michel v. United States · Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Citizens Bank & Trust Company of Park Ridge Illinois · Federal Deposit Insurance v. Ashley

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

  1. “approv[al] by the board of directors of the bank or its loan committee,”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a]ll suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity to which the [FDIC as] Corporation shall be a party shall be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States, and the United States district courts shall have original jurisdiction thereof, without regard to the amount in controversy....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It seems apparent that the FDIC must be permitted to operate in a dual capacity simultaneously, as a receiver and an insurer, to carry out its functions as a receiver, liquidator, and insurer.”
    2 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.