J.R. Simplot, Inc. v. Knight’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “( Responsive Br. of Appellant at 3), the only inference we draw from this holding is that a hyphen may not necessarily have the same meaning as a virgule (i.e., payable in the alternative). Clearly, Boyce does not stand for the proposition that a hyphen is ambiguous per se or that a hyphen unequivocally creates joint payees. Finally, in Joffe v. United California Bank, 141 Cal.App.3d 541 , 190 Cal.Rptr. 443 (1983), the court rejected the argument that a check made payable to”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. JR Simplot, Inc. v. Knight

2. “Knight endorsed his name, apparently forged the endorsement of Simplot Soilbuilders, and deposited the check into his account at Yakima Federal. Knight also sold crops to Connell Grain Growers in 1996. Connell Grain Growers paid for the crops with two checks, one in the amount of $22,494.73 and the other in the amount of $2,573.99. Connell Grain Growers made both checks payable to the order of”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. JR Simplot, Inc. v. Knight

3. “mark was a virgule and indicated the check was payable to Landau and Boyce in the alternative. The appellate court reversed the summary dismissal, reasoning: There is no proof that the mark between the named payees is in fact a virgule, other than the defendant's characterization of it as such. Therefore, the court cannot find as a matter of law that the check was payable to”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. JR Simplot, Inc. v. Knight