Legal Opinion
Master Chemical Corp. v. Inkrott
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided November 14, 1990No. 89-329PublishedCited by 55 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBryant, J.
The parties on appeal have submitted several propositions of law with respect to whether Toledo Trust breached the legal obligations it owed to its depositor, Master Chemical. Primarily, the parties have strenuously argued the application and merits of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) to the facts of this case.
We agree with the appellate court’s analysis of the application of the UCC to the present case. The appellate court stated:
“* * * [W]e find that the three checks written by Inkrott and payable to Toledo Trust were, as a matter of law, not properly payable in that Toledo Trust did not…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Trenton Trust Co. v. Western Surety Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1980
- Mary Kochton Appley v. Stuart West, Mary Kochton Appley v. National Republic Bank of ChicagoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987
- Zions First National Bank v. Clark Clinic Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1988
- Johnson v. Citizens National BankAppellate Court of Illinois · 1975
- Bank of Southern Maryland v. Robertson's Crab House, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1978
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by55 opinions
- Estate of William R. Barney, J v. PNC Bank, National AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2013
- Needham v. the Provident BankOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
- Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Jo Daviess Services, Inc. v. Elizabeth State Bank, an Illinois State Chartered BankCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001
- Continental Casualty Co. v. American National Bank & Trust Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2002
- Jones Distributing Co. v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 1996
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.