Chrysler Credit Corporation v. First National Bank And Trust Company Of Washington’s Empirical Analysis
746 F.2d 200 · 1984
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Ac Aukerman Company v. Rl Chaides Construction Co (1992), Las Vegas Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Far West Bank (1990)
56 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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
Relies on Universal Minerals, Inc. v. C. A. Hughes & Co. · Blofsen v. CUTAIAR · Snell v. Commonwealth, State Examining Board · SABINO v. Junio
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Chrysler alleges that First National engaged in fraud by permitting the dealer to perpetuate a check kiting scheme. If the bank had stopped the scheme, plaintiff argues, checks would have been returned to Chrysler Credit due to insufficient funds in the A1 Barry, Inc., account and Chrysler Credit would have discovered the financial problems at the dealership at an earlier time, thereby preventing further losses. In short, plaintiff seeks to hold First National liable for nondisclosure of a customer’s poor financial condition. “Pennsylvania law does not impose an affirmative duty on a bank to disclose to the world a customer’s financial condition. Section 551 of the Restatement of Torts, Second, accords liability for nondisclosure only if the parties are engaged in a business transaction or stand in a fiduciary relationship. Matter of Real Estate License v. Commonwealth, 47 Pa.Commw. 236, 407 A.2d 922 (1979). Here, First National and Chrysler Credit were not involved in a business transaction, nor a fiduciary relationship. The bank’s nondisclosure to Chrysler Credit did not constitute fraud because Chrysler Credit was not a party to whom the bank owed a duty of disclosure under Pennsylvania law.” Chrysler Credit Corp., supra, 746 F.2d at 207 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hellman v. Thiele“These limitations require that payor banks make decisions on demand items to insure prompt payment to a chain of individuals and institutions in a fluid commercial transaction. Otherwise, a situation is created where a series of banks are extending credit to each other.”
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.