Shelton v. Erwin’s Empirical Analysis
472 F.2d 1118 · 1973
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 4 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently January 2014 · most notably Bollinger Corporation Bigler, Nolden v. Plant Reclamation (1974)
16 federal appellate · 4 district · 14 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 American Card Co. v. H. M. H. Co. · Safe Deposit Bank and Trust Company v. Eugene B. Berman, Trustee, in the Matter of Fernandes Welding & Equipment Service, Inc., Bankrupt · 98 N.J. Super. 378 - M. Rutkin Elect. Sup. Co. v. Burdette Elect. · Mid-Eastern Electronics, Inc. v. First National Bank of Southern Maryland
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) ... a security interest is not enforceable against the debtor or third parties with respect to the collateral and does not attach unless (a) ... the debtor has signed a security agreement which contains a description of the collateral.... (b) value has been given; and (c) the debtor has rights in the collateral. (2) A security interest attaches when it becomes enforceable against the debtor with respect to the collateral. Attachment occurs as soon as all of the events specified in subsection (1) have taken place unless explicit agreement postpones the time of attaching.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Since the Code is not ambiguous on the requirements of the creation of an enforceable security interest, there is no reason to relax those requirements. Although the Code should be liberally construed, U.C.C. § 1-102(1), the doctrine of equitable mortgages is no longer necessary or useful in a commercial transaction since Article 9 reduces formal requisites to a minimum. U.C.C. § 9-203, comment 5.” Shelton v. Erwin, supra, 472 F.2d at 1119 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A financing statement is merely evidence of the creation of a security interest and does not itself constitute a security agreement.”
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.