Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 F.2d 334 - Woolsey v. Security Trust Co.

Woolsey v. Security Trust Co.’s Empirical Analysis

74 F.2d 334 · 1934

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
3
states following
June 1993
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently June 1993

10 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

701934194019501960197019801990decided

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 Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Insurance · Kidder v. Hall · Gamble v. Daniel · In re C. Moench & Sons Co. · Tiffany v. La Plume Condensed Milk Co.

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

  1. ““The letter of that section excludes banking and insurance corporations; its spirit and purpose, to leave the liquidation or the banking corporations of the country to the well-organized departments of the states and the nation organized for the purpose of supervising while they are going concerns and of liquidating them when they are not, excludes them. Federal laws provide elaborately for the supervision and liquidation of national banking corporations; the laws of the states do the same for state banks and insurance companies, in order to protect the millions of persons who deal with them on the faith of the protection afforded by direct governmental supervision and control. It was considered that it would be a ruinous thing to the state, to the depositors, and to the creditors to have the elaborate scheme of liquidation which the state provides broken into and nullified by bankruptcy proceedings, and it was intended, by withdrawing jurisdiction over these corporations from the bankruptcy court, that this would not occur. It would be directly contrary to the purposes so definitely and comprehensively expressed, to exempt banking corporations from the act, leaving their administration and liquidation to the state and federal systems devised expressly for them, to hold that this bank and trust company is not exempt, chartered though it was under the state banking laws, with banking privileges and powers, operated though it was under those laws, and now being liquidated, as i”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “neither consent, nor waiver, nor estoppel”
    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.