Legal Opinion
State Ex Rel. Stowell v. Littrell
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided March 4, 1971No. 1 CA-CIV 1388PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOWARD, Judge.
The Superintendent of Banks instituted an action against the appellees for the forfeiture provided in A.R.S. § 6-250, subsec. D. The complaint alleged in substance that while Littrell was an active salaried officer and director of the bank, he knowingly caused overdrafts in the total sum of $851.32 to occur to his checking account with the bank and that they knowingly honored and paid these overdrafts without complying with the mandates of A.R.S. § 6-250, requiring forfeiture to the state of the amount of the overdraft.
The appellees filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- State v. LindbergWashington Supreme Court · 1923
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Federal Deposit Ins. CorpCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1953
- Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, a Corporation v. Pioneer Valley Savings Bank, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1965
- State Ex Rel. Smith v. BohannanArizona Supreme Court · 1966
- Bushnell v. Superior Court of Maricopa CountyArizona Supreme Court · 1967
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Yetman v. NaumannCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1972
- Naame v. BradwayNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1978