Anderson v. Atherton, 302 U.S. 643 (1937). · Go Syfert
Search
Anderson v. Atherton, 302 U.S. 643 (1937). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Reliance Ins. Corp. (kyed, 1989-08-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1937 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1937 1981 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Reliance Ins. Corp.
E.D. Ky. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Atherton v. Anderson, 86 F.2d 518 (6th Cir.1936), rev’d on other grounds, 302 U.S. 643 , 58 S.Ct. 53 , 82 L.Ed. 500 (1937); Hughes v. Reed, 46 F.2d 435 (10th Cir.1931).
discussed Cited "see" First National Bank of Lincolnwood v. Keller
N.D. Ill. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Atherton v. Anderson, 86 F.2d 518, 529 (6th Cir. 1936), rev’d on other grounds 302 U.S. 643 , 58 S.Ct. 53 , 82 L.Ed. 500 (1937); Hughes v. Reed, 46 F.2d 435, 442 (10th Cir.1931): “The statute prohibits such loans to any person, and if an excess loan is in fact made to B, it does not avail that it is represented by notes signed by B’s wife or his corporation.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Berniece Larimore, Sam M. Taylor, William G. Butcher, and Orville Bottrell v. C.T. Conover, Comptroller of the Currency (2×)
7th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
In Corsica-na, 251 U.S. 68 , 40 S.Ct. 82 , 64 L.Ed. 141 (1919), the seminal case interpreting Sections 93 and 84 of the Banking Act, the Supreme Court attached a most important qualifying and limiting caveat to the determination of when a violation of the lending limit contained in Sec. 84 would be considered “knowing or intentional.” The Court ruled that if a director “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.’ ” Id. at 71-72 , 40 S.Ct. at 84 , 64 L.Ed. 141…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Anderson
v.
Atherton
12.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 18, 1937.
302 U.S. 643
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

302 U.S. 643

58 S.Ct. 53

82 L.Ed. 500

ANDERSON
v.
ATHERTON.

No. 12.

Supreme Court of the United States

October 18, 1937

Messrs. E. B. Stroud and Maurice E. Purnell, both of Dallas, Tex., for petitioner.

Messrs. Newton D. Baker and Howard F. Burns, both of Cleveland, Ohio, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

1

The Court is of the opinion that the Circuit Court of Appeals was in error in ruling that, in the absence of a cross appeal, the question whether common law liability for negligence would support the decree was not before the court for review. United States v. American Railway Express Co., 265 U.S. 425, 435, 436, 44 S.Ct. 560, 68 L.Ed. 1087; Langnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531, 538, 539, 51 S.Ct. 243, 75 L.Ed. 520; Public Service Commission v. Havemeyer, 296 U.S. 506, 509, 56 S.Ct. 360, 80 L.Ed. 357; United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, 299 U.S. 304, 330, 57 S.Ct. 216, 81 L.Ed. 255; Morley Construction Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 300 U.S. 185, 191, 57 S.Ct. 325, 81 L.Ed. 593. The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for the determination of that question.