Jerstad v. Warren

4 Citing cases

  1. Scudder v. Kennecott Copper Corp.

    886 P.2d 48 (Utah 1994)   Cited 17 times
    Following Heslop

    In interpreting rules of appellate procedure similar to Utah's, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that when an appeal is taken from a final judgment, "[t]here is no requirement that the notice designate intermediate orders which are to be raised as issues on appeal." Rourk v. State, 170 Ariz. 6, 821 P.2d 273, 280 (Ct.App. 1991); see Jerstad v. Warren, 73 Or. App. 387, 698 P.2d 1033 (1985) (holding to the same effect under an Oregon statute which reads similarly to our rules). II. INDEMNITY AGREEMENT AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT

  2. State ex rel Zidell v. Jones

    301 Or. 79 (Or. 1986)   Cited 20 times
    In State ex rel Zidell v. Jones, 301 Or. 79, 88-89, 720 P.2d 350 (1986), the court said: "ORCP 67B. is identical to FRCP 54(b). * * * We hold that when ORCP 67B. was adopted it was intended that the Oregon courts should follow the existing federal case law in interpreting the rule."

    " (Emphasis in original).See also Kerstad v. Warren, 73 Or. App. 387, 698 P.2d 1033 (1985); Alair Aviation v. Campbell, 58 Or. App. 409, 411, 648 P.2d 1339 (1982). We approve of the Oregon Court of Appeals cases which hold that a final judgment need not be embodied in a single document.

  3. Metropolitan Mortgage v. Becker

    64 Wn. App. 626 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 18 times

    Other jurisdictions have permitted enforcement of an assigned promissory note without negotiation.Fore v. Bles, 149 Ariz. 603, 721 P.2d 151 (1986); Griffith v. Griffith, 250 Ark. 845, 467 S.W.2d 737 (1971); Pay Ctr., Inc. v. Milton, 632 P.2d 642 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981); Hazel v. Tharpe Brooks, Inc., 159 Ga. App. 415, 283 S.E.2d 653 (1981); and Jerstad v. Warren, 73 Or. App. 387, 698 P.2d 1033 (1985). RCW 62A.3-201(3) and U.C.C. § 3-201 comment 8 require a transferee who takes without an endorsement to offer proof of acquisition, which creates a presumption the transferee is entitled to recover on the instrument.

  4. Hanalei, BRC Inc. v. Porter

    7 Haw. App. 304 (Haw. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that when a party provides an affidavit stating that it possesses a note, and a true and correct copy of the note and endorsement are appended to the affidavit, it can be inferred that the party possesses the note and endorsement

    An exception to the possession requirement exists under HRS § 490:3-804, where lost, destroyed, or stolen instruments are involved.See Guaranty Bank Trust Co. v. Dowling, 4 Conn. App. 376, 494 A.2d 1216 (1985); Castellano v. Bitkower, 216 Neb. 806, 346 N.W.2d 249 (1984); Jerstad v. Warren, 73 Or. App. 387, 698 P.2d 1033 (1985). A "transferee," as contrasted to a "holder," may sue on an instrument.