Smith v. Dearborn Financial Services, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
982 F.2d 976 · 1993
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp. (1996), Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Michigan, Inc. (2000)
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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. § 1751 (Credit Union Amendments of 1987) · 12 U.S.C. § 1752A · 12 U.S.C. § 1758 · 12 U.S.C. § 1760 · 12 U.S.C. § 1761 · 12 U.S.C. § 1761D · 12 U.S.C. § 1786
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Cort v. Ash · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) is the plaintiff of the class for whose special benefit the statute was enacted? (2) is there any explicit or implicit indication of legislative intent to either create or deny such a private right of action? (3) is implication of a private cause of action consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme? (4) is the cause of action one that is traditionally relegated to state law so that a federal cause of action would be inappropriate?”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Absent Congressional authorization to formulate substantive rules of decision, “federal common law” exists only in such narrow areas as those concerned with the rights and obligations of the United States, interstate or international disputes implicating the conflicting rights of the States or relations with foreign nations, and admiralty cases.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... Quo warranto is an extremely difficult and uncertain remedy. Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1498 (D.C.Cir.1984). Historically, the federal common law remedy of quo warranto has been available only in connection with proceedings over an individual’s right to hold an office or position. See Sundance Land Corp. v. Community First Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n, 840 F.2d 653, 665 (9th Cir.1988). “Since the remedy by quo warranto, ... is ... employed to ■ test the actual right to an office or franchise, it follows that it can afford no relief for official misconduct and can not be employed to test the legality of the official action of public or corporate officers.” United States ex rel. State of Wis. v. First Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n, 248 F.2d 804, 808 (7th Cir.1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 957 , 78 S.Ct. 543 , 2 L.Ed.2d 533 (1958)....”
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.