O'Conner v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis
81 F.2d 833 · 1936
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 181 · 12 U.S.C. § 191 (National Bank Receivership Act) · 12 U.S.C. § 197 · 12 U.S.C. § 63 · 12 U.S.C. § 65 · 28 U.S.C. § 110
Relies on Richmond v. Irons · First National Bank v. Williams · Forrest v. Jack · King v. Pomeroy · Espenschied v. Baum
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The appellees, stockholders of the American National Bank of Shreveport, in liquidation, filed in the court below a bill in equity against the appellants, the Comptroller of the Currency and the receiver of that bank appointed by the Comptroller of the Currency, praying relief, including the issuance of a rule requiring appellants to show cause why they should not be temporarily enjoined during the pendency of the suit from enforcing against appellees an assessment made by the Comptroller of the Currency against stockholders of said bank and a final decree anulling said assessment and perpetuating the injunction. Upon the filing of the bill, a rule to show cause at a stated time, at Shreveport, La., why a temporary injunction should not be granted as prayed for, was entered. Service of process on the bill and on the rule to show cause was made on the Comptroller of the Currency in the District of Columbia. The Comptroller of the Currency appeared specially, and moved the court to quash the attempted service on him of the subpoena and the rule to show cause, on the grounds that, at the time of such attempted service, he was a resident of and had his offices in the District of Columbia, and that the court below had no jurisdiction over him. Upon the rule to show cause being submitted upon the bill and exhibits, the answer, of the receiver, and said motion to quash, the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, overruled the motion to quash, and entered an interlocuto”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Abel v. Hellawell
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.