Grossmann v. Saunders’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Shelor Motor Co., Inc. v. Miller (2001), 47 Va. App. 287 - Irwin v. Irwin (2005)
1 federal appellate · 43 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 Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville · Morton Booth Co. v. Tiara Furniture, Inc. · Bloom v. Hilty · Merriman v. Cover, Drayton Leonard · Goldberg Co. v. County Green Ltd. Partnership
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The rule in Virginia has been long established that “when a contract is silent as to the time within which an act is to be performed, the law implies a reasonable time.” . . . “[Wjhat constitutes a reasonable time is generally an issue to be decided by [the trier of fact], under all the circumstances of the case.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Generally, whether a secured party had actual notice of a prior security interest is not a relevant consideration in determining priorities. Code § 8.9-312(5) contains no provision establishing lack of notice as a prerequisite for its operation. Although lack of notice is not a prerequisite to operation of Code § 8.9-312(5), Code § 8.1-203 provides that “[e]very contract or duty with this act imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance or enforcement.” Accordingly, allegations and proof of “a leading on, bad faith or inequitable conduct” on the part of a secured party may affect the priorities established under Code § 8.9- 312(5) by estopping the assertion of a . priority, [citations omitted]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a security interest is not enforceable against the debtor or third parties with respect to the collateral and does not attach unless: (a) the collateral is in the possession of the secured party pursuant to agreement, or the debtor has signed a security agreement which contains a description of the collateral ..., and (b) the value has been given; and (e) the debtor has rights in the collateral.”
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.