Cflc Inc v. Cflc’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 2 state decisions

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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"No magic words or precise form are necessary to create or provide for a security interest so long as the minimum formal requirements of the [Uniform Commercial] Code are met." In re Amex-Protein Dev. Corp. , 504 F.2d 1056 , 1058-59 (9th Cir. 1974). "Although the U.C.C. does not specifically state that intention to create a security agreement is an element necessary to creating a valid security agreement, it is clear that intention to do so is required." In re Airwest Int'l , 70 B.R. 914 , 919 (Bkrtcy. D. Hawai'i 1987). Determining whether the parties intended to create a security interest is a two-step process. The court must find both language in a written agreement that objectively indicates the parties' intent to create a security interest and the presence of a subjective intent by the parties to create a security interest. See id. (citing White & Summers, Handbook of the Law Under the Uniform Commercial Code, § 23-3 (1980) ). The intent to create a security interest must appear on the face of a written document executed by the debtor. See In re Ace Lumber Supply, Inc. , 105 B.R. 964 , 968 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1989).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Coulson v. Kane (In re Price) · In Re SCHWALB

2. “[W]e decline to apply course of dealing analysis to non-Article 2 transactions in which there has been only a tacit acceptance of a contract term repeatedly sent to the offeree on a pre-printed form. Even under the common law, “silence in the face of an offer is not an acceptance, unless there is a relationship between the parties or a previous course of dealing pursuant to which silence would be understood as acceptance.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re SCHWALB

3. “a sequence of previous conduct between the parties to a particular transaction which is fairly to be regarded as establishing a common basis of understanding for interpreting their expressions and other conduct.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Insurance Company of North America v. Nnr Aircargo Service Inc Opinion