Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 56 Misc. 2d 261 - Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Sharp

56 Misc. 2d 261 - Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Sharp’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
13
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

2 district · 31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably 144 Wis. 2d 931 - Daniel v. Bank of Hayward (1988), Holstein v. Greenwich Yacht Sales, Inc. (1979)

2 district · 31 state decisions — followed in 13 states

250196819701980199020002010decided

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 Benedict v. Ratner · Ferris v. . Sterling · Empire State Type Founding Co. v. Grant · Howarth v. Universal CIT Credit Corporation · Decker v. . Furniss

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

  1. “"In holding that Chrysler had not attained the status of buyer in ordinary course of business, perhaps the court cannot be faulted. But, one may be surprised that Article 2, with its avowed mission to downgrade the title route in determining rights in goods in the transitional period from contract to performance, should leave such an important area as the present to the title tests of section 2-401. "Emphasis upon a title-passing test means that until title passes, either according to the contract or through seller’s delivery of the goods, the 'executory buyer’s’ status is in jeopardy. He is subject to the superior rights of an inventory secured party and runs the risk of being advised that the sale to him is in violation of the security agreement, so that he may never become a buyer in ordinary course of business. Can this be right? If so, something seems to be lacking.” Skilton, Buyer in Ordinary Course of Business under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 1974 Wis. L. Rev. 1 , 17-19.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““If there is a usage of trade which exposes an entruster on floor plan to certain risks, these are risks against which he can guard by audits and account procedures or he can refuse to knowingly expose himself to the risk with the particular dealer. To fail to place the exposure of such risk with the entruster in such situation would make it impossible for retail finance companies to do business with any dealer unless the entruster were directly a participant. To hold otherwise, would expose the retail financier to a double loss as against at most a partial loss for both. The proliferation of paper work would be a giant step backwards in modern commercial practice.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A `sale' consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price. * * *”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.