Poole v. Elliott’s Empirical Analysis
76 F.2d 772 · 1935
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 1993
7 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. Johnston · Empire State Surety Co. v. Carroll County · Brennan v. Tillinghast · Schumacher v. Harriett · Quin v. Earle
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“would affect a large part of the obligations to depositors and probably all of the cash assets passing into the hands of the receivers”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Downriver Community Federal Credit Union v. Penn Square Bank, Through Its Receiver, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Wood Products Credit Union, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Penn Square Bank, Through Its Receiver, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant · Downriver Community Federal Credit Union v. Penn Square Bank ex rel. Federal Deposit Insurance“injustice to other persons interested in the administration of the estate”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Downriver Community Federal Credit Union v. Penn Square Bank, Through Its Receiver, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Wood Products Credit Union, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Penn Square Bank, Through Its Receiver, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant · Downriver Community Federal Credit Union v. Penn Square Bank ex rel. Federal Deposit Insurance“The court below, on the testimony heard in open court, found that, while the bank was in fact insolvent when it received the deposits in question, in that it did not possess sufficient solvent and marketable assets to meet its obligations, it was still a going concern and continued to receive deposits, pay checks, and to do general banking business for three days thereafter, until forced to close by order of the banking department. And said the [district] court: “So far as I can ascertain from the evidence, the officers of the bank did not know or believe at that time that the bank was hopelessly and irretrievably insolvent, but thought it would be able to continue in business.” . This conclusion is amply sustained by the evidence.”
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.