Heinicke Instruments Co. v. Republic Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “requires the secured party, his agent, or the bailee to have actual possession of the collateral in order to perfect his security interest. The debtor’s lack of possession coupled with actual possession by the creditor, the creditor’s agent or the bailee serves ‘to provide notice to prospective third party creditors that the debtor no longer has unfettered use of [his] collateral.’ In re Copeland, 391 F.Supp. 134, 151 (D.Del.1975). See also 1 G. Gilmore, Security Interests in Personal Property § 142 (1965) p. 440; J. White & R. Summers, Handbook of the Law Under U.C.C. § 23-10 (1972).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ingersoll-Rand Financial Corp. v. Nunley · Clancy v. Kane (In Re Bruce Farley Corp.)

2. ““A security interest in letters of credit and advices of credit (subsection [2][a] of section 109A-5 — 116), goods, instruments, money, negotiable documents or chattel paper 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.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McDaniel v. American Druggists Insurance Co. (In re National Buy-Rite, Inc.) · Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Van Kylen (In Re Van Kylen)

3. “hear[ing] and ... decid[ing] any issues heretofore or hereafter properly presented to [it] which we did not decide.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Integrated Computer Systems Publishing Co Inc v. Learning Tree Open University Integrated Computer Systems Publishing Co Inc · Idaho First National Bank v. Commissioner