Atherton v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
86 F.2d 518 · 1936
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1989 · most notably Anderson v. Abbott (1944), The Cold Metal Process Company and the Union National Bank of Youngstown, Ohio, Trustee v. Republic Steel Corporation, Republic Steel Corporation v. The Cold Metal Process Company and the Union National Bank of Youngstown, Ohio, Trustee (1956)
25 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 24 · 12 U.S.C. § 29 · 12 U.S.C. § 83 · 12 U.S.C. § 84 · 12 U.S.C. § 93
Relies on Langnes v. Green · Baltimore Co v. Phillips · Huntington v. Attrill · United States v. Lanza · Briggs v. Spaulding
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The bank was manifestly faced with the problem of either taking its then present loss or considering some reasonably feasible and permissible plan to reduce or eliminate it. To have remained idle, to have awaited speculative results of a bankruptcy sale was a course not dictated by prudence or sound business judgment, and to have refused to consider any reasonable plan for saving the going concern value of the wagon works might indeed have submitted its directors to charges of negligence, for both district judges who had supervised the bankruptcy proceedings had ordered the receivers to continue operations to save going value. * * * The controlling principle seems to us to be that while the bank has no power, either express or implied, to enter upon an original speculative enterprise, yet as an incident to its express powers the bank has a right to acquire property, to put it in condition for resale, and where such property is a manufacturing establishment whose value depends substantially upon interrupted operation, we think implied power exists to continue such operation for a time providing the primary purpose of the bank is to save its debt rather than to speculate in future profits, and there is reasonable prospect of realization. How much new money may.to that end be invested, and how long such operation may continue, must depend, of course, upon the necessities and peculiar circumstances of each individual transaction. The particular problem envisioned may not be reso”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The BancoKentucky Company was-certainly not a sham, for nearly $10,000,-000 of actual cash paid for its stock attest its reality, and there is nothing in the record to point to it as an instrumentality of the bank. Nor was it organized for a fraudulent purpose or to conceal secret or sinister enterprises conducted for the benefit of the bank.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Anderson v. Abbott“deliberately refrained from investigating that which it was his duty to investigate, any resulting violation of the statute must be regarded as 'in effect intentional.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Larimore v. Conover
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.