Legal Opinion
Tipton v. Heeren
Nevada Supreme Court
Decided September 23, 1993No. 22916, 23184PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
By the Court,
Young, J.:
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 cow. The district court ruled for Heerens, finding that Tipton did not constitute an HDC. As a result, the district court subjected Tipton to the defense against AGI — the failure of consideration. Tipton *922appealed. Subsequently, the district court granted Heerens’…
2Cases cited6 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
- Canam Hambro Systems, Inc. v. HorbachCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1982
- Canfield v. GillNevada Supreme Court · 1985
- People's Finance & Thrift Co. v. De BerryWyoming Supreme Court · 1936
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Mro Communications, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company, Now At&t Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- LePome v. BerksonNevada Supreme Court · 2009
- Soro v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.Court of Appeals of Nevada · 2017
- SORO VS. DIST. CT. (AMERICA FIRST FED. CREDIT UNION)Nevada Supreme Court · 2017
- SORO VS. DIST. CT. (AMERICA FIRST FED. CREDIT UNION)Nevada Supreme Court · 2017
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.