Copeland Pension Benefit Fund Inc’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
7 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably Hasset v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield (In Re O.P.M. Leasing Services, Inc.) (1985), Vienna Park Properties Vienna Park Properties v. United Postal Savings Association Fsb (1992)
7 district · 10 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 Pepper v. Litton · Katchen v. Landy · Katchen v. Landy · United States Nat Bank in Johnstown v. Chase Nat Bank of New York City · R. Anthony Dubay v. Everette H. Williams, Everette H. Williams v. Rose City Development Co., Inc., Robert J. Davis v. Everette H. Williams
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.
““A security interest in .. . goods . . . may be perfected by the secured party’s taking possession of the collateral. If such collateral other than goods covered by a negotiable document is held by a bailee, the secured party is deemed to have possession from the time the bailee receives notification of the secured party’s interest. A security interest is perfected by possession from the time possession is taken without relation back and continues only so long as possession is retained, unless otherwise specified in this Article. The security interest may be otherwise perfected as provided in this Article before or after the period of possession by the secured party.” (Emphasis added)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Where the Code requires perfection by possession of the secured party or his bailee, it is clear that possession by the debtor or an individual closely associated with the debtor is not sufficient to alert prospective creditors of the possibility that the debtor’s property is encumbered .. . . ” (authority cited) (Emphasis added)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Whatever import the modifying language 'or otherwise dispose of’ is intended to have, we conclude that the mere retention of collateral is not the type of disposition which this provision contemplates. A contrary conclusion would obliterate the distinction which the Code draws between the consequences of a secured party's retaining and disposing of collateral. It would permit a secured party to dispose of collateral under § 9-504 by retaining it and in addition, to claim a deficiency. To sanction this course of conduct as 'commercially reasonable’ would contravene the Code's mandate that an effective election to retain the collateral results in a complete discharge of the underlying obligation.””
2 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.