Young v. Hembree’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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The first question is whether plaintiff is a holder in due course. In order to be a holder in due course, where the instrument is payable ‘to order,’ plaintiff must plead and prove that the check was indorsed by the payee. Where the indorsement is not proved to be that of the payee, or where there is no indorsement at all, plaintiff takes not as an innocent purchaser, but subject to the defenses that might have been interposed against the payee. Phelps v. Womack (1917) 66 Okl. 111 , 167 P. 478 ; Gault v. Kane (1915) 44 Okl. 763 , 145 P. 1128; Hummell v. Brown (1923) 93 Okl. 256 , 221 P. 738 . Plaintiff does not question the correctness of this rule, but claims that there is no absolute rule as to what form the in-dorsement must take (8 C.J. 352, § 531), and that the signature, ‘Horn & Faulkner, by L. H. Horn,’ is a sufficient in-dorsement of ‘Horn & Faulkner Oil Trust.’ But on its face, the indorsement is not that of the payee, and there is no evidence in the record to show that they are one and the same firm or legal entity.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. White v. City Nat. Bank of Norman