Menichini v. Grant’s Empirical Analysis
995 F.2d 1224 · 1993
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 7 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Pero's Steak and Spaghetti House v. Lee (2002), 329 Ill. App. 3d 686 - Continental Casualty Co. v. American National Bank & Trust Co. (2002)
16 federal appellate · 7 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc. · 324 Pa. Super. 123 - Cathcart v. Keene Industrial Insulation · Bohus v. Beloff · Ciccarelli v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd. · Underpinning & Foundation Constructors, Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As tempting a choice as [it] may be in an individual case [i.e. favoring “the rights of unsuspecting victims of forgery over the broader interest of the commercial world”], we think the public would be poorly served by a rule that effectively shifts the responsibility for careful bookkeeping away from those in the best position to monitor accounts and employees. Strict application of the limitation period, while predictably harsh in some cases, best serves the twin goals of swift resolution of controversies and “certainty of liability” advanced by the U.C.C.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[T]he utility of negotiable instruments lies in their ability to be readily accepted by creditors as payment for indebtedness. Checks must be transferable. Consequently, 'in structuring the law of checks we ... seek to enhance the negotiability of commercial paper so that it may play its role as a money substitute.’ Robert Hillman, et al., Common Law and Equity Under the Uniform Commercial Code, [par.] 14.01[1] (1985). Negotiability requires predictable and rapid collection through payment channels. Closely related to negotiability are commercial finality and certainty. 'The finality of transactions promoted by an ascertainable definite period of liability is essential to the free negotiability of instruments on which commercial welfare so heavily depends.’ Fuscellaro v. Industrial Nat’l Corp., 117 R.I. 558, 563 , 368 A.2d 1227, 1231 (1977); [citation]. The Code drafters sought quick and inexpensive resolution of commercial disputes. This overarching goal is particularly important with negotiable instruments where the exigencies of commerce require inexpensive, quick, and reliable transfer of funds.” Menichini, 995 F.2d at 1230-31 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any person who by his negligence substantially contributes to a material alteration of the instrument or to the making of an unauthorized signature is precluded from asserting the alteration or lack of authority against a holder in due course or against a drawee or other payor who pays the instrument in good faith and in accordance with the reasonable commercial standards of the business of the drawee or payor.”
3 later decisions 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.