Grain Land Coop v. Kar Kim Farms, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
199 F.3d 983 · 1999
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Beckman (2000), Abels v. Farmers Commodities Corp. (2001)
26 federal appellate · 3 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
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill · Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Co Petro Marketing Group, Inc. · Innovative Home Health Care Inc v. Pt-Ot Associates of the Black Hills · Koke v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is the contemplation of physical delivery of the subject commodity that is the hallmark of an unregulated cash-forward contract. In order to determine whether a transaction is an unregulated cash-forward contract, we must decide whether there is a legitimate expectation that physical delivery of the actual commodity by the seller to the original contracting buyer will occur in the future. Andersons, 166 F.3d at 318; see also Lachmund, 191 F.3d at 787-88; CFTC v. Noble Metals Int’l, Inc., 67 F.3d 766 , 772-73 (9th Cir.1995); Oeltjenbrun v. CSA Investors, Inc., 3 F.Supp.2d 1024, 1039-40 (N.D.Iowa 1998). Courts engaged in this inquiry have shunned self-serving labels attached to the contracts in question, and instead examined the intentions of the parties, the terms of the contract, the course of dealing between the parties, and any other relevant factors to determine whether the parties contemplated physical delivery. This individualized, multi-factor approach scrutinizes each transaction for such characteristics as whether the parties are in the business of obtaining or producing the subject commodity; whether they are capable of delivering or receiving the commodity in the quantities provided for in the contract; whether there is a definite date of delivery; whether the agreement explicitly requires actual delivery, as opposed to allowing the delivery obligation to be rolled indefinitely; whether payment takes place only upon delivery; and whether the contract’s terms ar”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order to determine whether a transaction is an unregulated cash-forward contract, we must decide `whether there is a legitimate expectation that physical delivery of the actual commodity by the seller to the original contracting buyer will occur in the future.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“fairly and adequately submitted the issues in the case to the jury.”
3 later decisions 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.