We recognize that there is a policy favoring consistent judicial interpretation and application of the uniform laws. See Minn. Stat. § 645.22; UCC § 1-103(a)(3). In Coeur d’Alene Mining, the Idaho Supreme Court examined UFA § 9 and the earlier version of UCC § 3-304(2), found that that earlier version of the UCC was consistent with the UFA, and concluded that the result would be the samé under both statutes. 118 Idaho at 818-19, 800 P.2d at 1032-33. However, Coeur d’Alene Mining is based on the original draft of Article 3 of the UCC. Id. As previously noted, the original section 3-304 has been expanded substantially in the current section 3-307 and it is not clear the Idaho court would have reached the same conclusion under the current law. Furth N.W.2d 765, 770-71 (Minn.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). But see Minn.Stat. § 604.10 (2004) (providing
holding that subrogation rights are not security interests under ucc article 9 holding that article 2 of the ucc preempts common law claims holding in non 17200 case that common law claims duplicative of the flsa are preempted holding that the flsa preempts certain state law claims holding that article 4a of the ucc preempts common law claims where they are inconsistent or duplicative