Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 682 F.2d 1338 - Junco v. Conover

Junco v. Conover’s Empirical Analysis

682 F.2d 1338 · 1982

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
February 2015
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently February 2015

15 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

1101982199020002010decided

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 Eisenstadt v. Baker · Corsicana Nat Bank of Corsicana v. Johnson · Greene County Planning Board v. Federal Power Commission · Groos National Bank and Clinton Manges v. Comptroller of the Currency, Groos National Bank of San Antonio, Texas, and Clinton Manges v. United States of America, Department of the Treasury, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency · 444 F. Supp. 510 - United States v. Corbin Farm Service

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

  1. “deliberately refrained from investigating that which it was his duty to investigate, any resulting violation of the statute must be regarded as 'in effect intentional.' " Id. at 71-72, 40 S.Ct. at 84, 64 L.Ed. 141; see also Atherton v. Anderson, 86 F.2d 518 (6th Cir.1936), rev'd on other grounds, 302 U.S. 643 , 58 S.Ct. 53, 82 L.Ed. 500 (1937); White v. Thomas, 37 F.2d 452 (9th Cir.1930). In assessing the facts surrounding Butcher's "knowledge,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “standard applies to an 1818(b) enforcement proceedings, (a question not determined)--the directors were liable because they had knowledge of the identity of the borrowers, knowledge that the proceeds were to be used by one company, and knowledge of the loan amounts and the bank's loan limits. Apparently, these directors failed to aggregate the loans, as required by Sec. 84. In del Junco, the Court explicitly pointed out that”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(d)irectors of a national bank operate in an area closely regulated by federal law, and cannot maintain ignorance of the law as a defense.”
    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.