National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Priority Electronics Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently June 1997 · most notably Matthews v. CTI Container Transport International Inc. (1989), Aoki v. Shepherd Machinery Co. (1982)
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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 In Re Crown Cartridge Corp. · 218 F. Supp. 284 - In Re Herold Radio & Electronics Corp. · Boothe Leasing Corp. v. New York Credit Men's Adjustment Bureau, Inc. · 45 Misc. 2d 753 - In re Merkel, Inc. Monarch Marking System Co. · General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Blersch
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.
“Whether a lease is intended as security is to be determined by the facts of each case; however, (a) the inclusion of an option to purchase does not of itself make the lease one intended for security, and (b) an agreement that upon compliance with the terms of the lease the lessee shall become or has the option to become the owner of the property for no additional consideration or for a nominal consideration does make the lease one intended for security.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(I)n a case such as this one where the equipment will be essentially worthless at the end of the lease period, if a fair market value test was used, the parties could determine whether the agreement would be a lease or a sale by the simple expedient of including or excluding a 'fair market value' option purchase price such as the one in this case. In other words, the plaintiff would have us hold that even if the fair market value of the equipment at the end of the lease is one dollar and that is the option price, then one dollar is not 'nominal consideration' under the Code.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he Code talks in terms of 'nominal consideration' regardless of whether the consideration represents the fair market value or not.”
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.