Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Tober

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided April 7, 1992No. 1 CA-CR 88-1458, 1 CA-CR 88-1459Published

1DissentEubank, Judge

I dissent. In reversing appellants’ convictions, the majority holds that A.R.S. § 44-1801(22), which defines a security as “any note,” is unconstitutionally vague, and I disagree.

“[A]ny note” means what it says: any note. A.R.S. § 47-3104 defines a note as follows:

A. Any writing to be a negotiable instrument within this chapter must:

1. Be signed by the maker or drawer; and

2. Contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money and no other promise, order, obligation or power given by the maker or drawer except as authorized by this chapter; and

3. Be payable on demand or at…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. FormanSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Securities & Exchange Commission v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
  4. Landreth Timber Co. v. LandrethSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Reves v. Ernst & YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1990

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API