Doherty v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
94 F.2d 495 · 1938
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 2003 · most notably Gunter v. Hutcheson (1982), First State Bank of Hudson County v. United States (1979)
10 federal appellate · 2 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. § 264
Relies on M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Coffin v. United States · Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. · United States v. Lanza
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“stabilizing or promoting the stability of banks”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Defendant does not directly challenge the power of Congress to create a corporation to act as a government depositary and financial agent, and that power must manifestly be conceded He, however, contends that Congress is without power to enact this law providing for the guarantee of deposits because in so doing it is exercising a police power which is not vested in Congress, but reserved to the states. But as Congress had the right to create this corporation and make it a depositary of public moneys of the United States and a financial agent of the government, it must be conceded the power to enact such regulatory legislation as it deemed necessary to protect and make effective this government agency. This contention overlooks the rule that where a certain field of activity becomes subject to one of the enumerated federal powers, then the federal government may in that field exercise authority comparable to state police power. Tagg Bros. & Moorhead v. United States, 280 U.S. 420 , 50 S.Ct. 220 , 74 L.Ed. 524 ; Seven Cases v. United States, 239 U.S. 510 , 36 S.Ct. 190, 192 , 60 L.Ed. 411 , L.R.A. 1916D, 164 . As said by the Supreme Court in Seven Cases v. United States, supra, ‘Congress is not to be denied the exercise of its constitutional authority over interstate commerce, and its power to adopt not only means necessary but convenient to its exercise, because these means may have the quality of police regulations.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““And if a State bank chooses to come into the System created by the United States, the United States may punish acts injurious to the System, although done to a corporation that the State also is entitled to protect. The general proposition is too plain to need more than statement.””
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.