United States v. McCright’s Empirical Analysis
821 F.2d 226 · 1987
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2001 · most notably United States v. Chaney (1992), United States v. Rochester (1990)
21 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1817 · 12 U.S.C. § 248 (§ 11 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) · 12 U.S.C. § 375B (§ 22 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) · 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1005 · 18 U.S.C. § 656
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States · Ohio v. Gallagher · Bergman v. United States · Paternostro v. United States
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although we do not believe McCright had to be the lending agent in order to misapply bank funds in contravention of section 656, the statute does contemplate some causal connection between the defendant's actions as an officer or director of the bank and the making of the loan.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“made, or influenced in a significant way, as an officer of the bank, the decision to extend the loan.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) that the accused was an officer, director, agent or employee of a bank; (2) that the bank was in some way connected with a nationally or federally insured bank; (3) that the accused willfully misapplied the monies or funds of the bank; and (4) the accused acted with the intent to injure or defraud the bank.”
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.