Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 60 Ohio App. 2d 100 - Peoples Acceptance Corp. v. Van Epps

60 Ohio App. 2d 100 - Peoples Acceptance Corp. v. Van Epps’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
April 2002
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2002

7 state decisions

801978198019902000decided

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 Universal C. I. T. Credit Co. v. Rone · 57 Tenn. App. 106 - Mallicoat v. Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp. · 57 Wis. 2d 106 - Vic Hansen & Sons, Inc. v. Crowley · 8 Ill. App. 3d 789 - Tauber v. Johnson · Oilwell Division, United States Steel Corp. v. Fryer

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

  1. “Unless collateral is perishable or threatens to decline speedily in value or is of a type customarily sold on a recognized market, reasonable notification of the time and place of any public sale or reasonable notification of the time after which any private sale or other intended disposition is to be made shall be sent by the secured party to the debtor if he has not signed after default a statement renouncing or modifying his right to notification of sale.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In view of the fact that all of the proceedings are conducted by the creditor and that he alone knows the details of those proceedings, it is manifest that only he can establish the validity of the commercial transaction. We therefore conclude that the better rule requires the secured party to bear the burden of proving that the sale of the collateral is commercially reasonable and that the subsequent deficiency judgment is valid. “The standards which should be used to determine a commercially reasonable sale are matters of fairness and business practice. The secured party should always attempt to sell the repossessed collateral for the best price possible, and where there is a gross discrepancy between the disposal and the original sale price of the repossessed collateral, there must be some affirmative showing on the part of the secured party that the terms of the repossession sale were commercially reasonable.” Id. at 104 .”
    1 later decision 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.