Legal Opinion

Valley Bank & Trust Co. v. Parthum

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided July 6, 1936No. Civil No. 3652PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.

Appellant (garnishee bank) in its motion and brief for rehearing says:

“We respectfully submit that the opinion in this case is not a decision of the case disclosed by the record. It wholly overlooks the real issue in the case and should be set aside and a rehearing granted, in order that the court may consider and pass upon the real issue of the case.”

We did not intend to do what the appellant charges, and we hardly think the language it employs represents the situation, factually or legally. In our statement of the case, we tried to set out in as little space as possible the essential or…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Patterson v. Marine N. BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
  2. Siminoff v. Jas. H. Goodman & Co. BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
  3. John M. C. Marble Co. v. Merchants' National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
  4. Citizens N. Bank v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
  5. Ford v. Ames National BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1923

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Valley National Bank v. BrownArizona Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & BeauchampArizona Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Premier Financial Services. v. CitibankCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1995
  4. Vaughn v. SpitzMissouri Court of Appeals · 1984
  5. Valley National Bank v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1973

1 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