Legal Opinion
Tipton v. Heeren
Nevada Supreme Court
Decided September 23, 1993No. 22916, 23184Published
1Opinion of the Court
859 P.2d 465 (1993)
Lee G. TIPTON, Appellant,
v.
Paul HEEREN and Carol Heeren, Respondents (Two Cases).
Nos. 22916, 23184.
Supreme Court of Nevada.
September 23, 1993.
Morton & Associates, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Jimmerson, Davis & Santoro, and Lynn M. Hansen, Las Vegas, for respondents.
OPINION
YOUNG, Justice:
The appeal in Case No. 22916 concerns whether appellant Lee Tipton ("Tipton") was a holder in due course ("HDC") of a $60,800 unsecured promissory note (the "Note") made payable to Applied Genetic International, Inc. ("AGI") by respondents Paul and Carol Heeren ("Heerens") for the purchase of a…
Also in this document: Dissent; Concurrence.
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Third Party v. Milton A. Turner, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
- Money Mart Check Cashing Center, Inc. v. Epicycle Corp.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1983
- Burrows, Maxey, M & B Wholesale Bait v. Progressive Casualty InsuranceNevada Supreme Court · 1991
- Canam Hambro Systems, Inc. v. HorbachCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1982
- Tipton v. HeerenNevada Supreme Court · 1993
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.