State v. Tober
Court of Appeals of Arizona
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
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. FormanSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Landreth Timber Co. v. LandrethSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Reves v. Ernst & YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.