Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 42 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Weinberger.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Weinberger Anchor | green | “there is simply no requirement that an entity in possession of a negotiable instrument that has been endorsed in blank must establish how it came into possession of the instrument in order to be able to enforce it” | 23 |
| 2 | JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Weinberger | green | “it is unnecessary to give factual details of the delivery in order to establish that possession was obtained prior to a particular date” | 14 |
| 3 | Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Brewton | green | “a plaintiff has standing in a mortgage foreclosure action where it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.