How cited: Thrash v. Georgia State Bank of Rome · Go Syfert

Thrash v. Georgia State Bank of Rome (1988)

green · 14 citation events across 6 courts. Showing the 6 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Rule Authority · E.D. Va. · signal: cf.
Cf. Thrash v. Georgia State Bank of Rome, 189 Ga.App. 21 , 375 S.E.2d 112, 113 (Ga.Ct.App.1988) (holding that plaintiff, an officer and shareholder of a corporation with signatory authority over the corporation’s checking account, was not a "customer” of the bank and could not file suit for wrongful dishonor of the corporation’s checks). 12 .
green Krieger v. Speir (2002)
Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.
However, “[t]he mere reargument of a party’s case or the denial of an opponent’s allegations will be disregarded in considering a motion for summary judgment where no competent evidence has been submitted to raise a material issue of fact.” Heard v. Neighbor Newspapers, 190 Ga. App. 756, 757 (1) ( 350 SE2d 279 ) (1989), rev’d on other ground, 259 Ga. 458 ( 383 SE2d 553 ) (1989); Thrash v. Ga. State Bank, 189 Ga. App. 21, 24 ( 375 SE2d 112 ) (1988).
green White v. Regions Bank (1998)
Rule Authority · Ala. Civ. App.
E.g., Thrash v. Georgia State Bank of Rome, 189 Ga.App. 21, 23-24 , 375 S.E.2d 112, 114 (1988) (president/minority shareholder of depositor corporation was not “customer” of bank entitled to maintain wrongful dishonor action pursuant to § 4-402 of the Uniform Commercial Code); Reitzammer v. Peoples Sav.
president/minority shareholder of depositor corporation was not “customer” of bank entitled to maintain wrongful dishonor action pursuant to § 4-402 of the Uniform Commercial Code
Rule Authority · Ariz.
See also Kesner v. Liberty Bank, 7 Mass. App. 934, 390 N.E.2d 259 (1979) (corporate treasurer was not “customer” who could sue for damages for wrongful dishonor of corporate check); Koger v. East First Nat’l Bank, 443 So.2d 141 (Fla.App.1983) (principal stockholder could not bring action against bank for wrongful dishonor of corporate check); Thrash v. Georgia State Bank, 189 Ga.App. 21 , 375 S.E.2d 112, 113 (1988) (officer and shareholder of a corporation was not a “custome…
officer and shareholder of a corporation was not a “customer” with standing to sue for wrongful dishonor of corporate checks
Cited (see also) · Neb. · signal: see also · 2 citations in this opinion
See, also, Thrash v. Georgia State Bank of Rome, 189 Ga. App. 21 , 375 S.E.2d 112 (1988) (corporation’s president, who was one of four shareholders and who owned minority of shares, was not a “customer” of the bank in which the corporation was a depositor and, therefore, could not maintain a “wrongful dishonor” action against the bank notwithstanding that the plaintiff president guaranteed the corporation’s debt to the bank).
Cited (see also) · Neb. · signal: see also · 2 citations in this opinion
See, also, Thrash v. Georgia State Bank of Rome, 189 Ga. App. 21 , 375 S.E.2d 112 (1988) (corporation's president, who was one of four shareholders and who owned minority of shares, was not a "customer" of the bank in which the corporation was a depositor and, therefore, could not maintain a "wrongful dishonor" action against the bank notwithstanding that the plaintiff president guaranteed the corporation's debt to the bank).