United States v. Dale Smith, Suzanne Smith, Gordon E. Mills and Sharon R. Mills’s Empirical Analysis
832 F.2d 774 · 1987
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2012
3 federal appellate · 2 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 United States 77-1359 v. Kimbell Foods Inc · United States v. Standard Oil Co. · Tinsley & Groom v. West Kentucky Production Credit Ass'n (In Re Tinsley & Groom) · Schneider v. Ray (In Re Roberts)
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As alluded to by the commentators and as delineated in the UCC, only a security interest in “growing crops” must be perfected by a financing statement containing a description of the real estate. It would appear that a security interest in other subeategories of “farm products,” such as severed crops, stored crops, or products of crops in their unmanufactured state, is, by negative implication, perfected without inclusion of a real estate description. The Court holds that severed crops are not “growing crops”, but rather are simply another subcategory of the UCC’s generic collateral category of farm products, if in the farm debtor’s possession. Because severed crops are not growing crops, the real estate description requirement [UCC § 9-402(1) ] is inapplicable, and in order to perfect a security interest in the severed and stored crop a financing statement does not have to contain a description of the real estate. [[Image here]] [The creditor] was granted a security interest in and perfected a security interest in “all farm products.” Although a real estate description was omitted in the UCC-1 financing statement, when the crops were harvested and thus ceased to be “growing crops” the real estate description requirements of [UCC § 9-402(1) ] became inapplicable, and [the creditor’s] formerly unperfeeted security interest in “growing crops” became a perfected security interest in farm products ... the severed, stored grain. Though this gap in perfection could be a problem und”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because severed crops are not growing crops, the real estate description [of the statute] ... is unapplicable [sic], and in order to perfect a security interest in the severed and stored crop a financing statement [or security agreement] does not have to contain a description of the real estate.'[ 2 ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“thoughtfully written, conceptually sound and highly persuasive.”
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.