ILCS » Chapter 810 · Act 5

810 ILCS 5/3-101

Short title

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(810 ILCS 5/3-101) (from Ch. 26, par. 3-101)
    Sec. 3-101. Short title. This Article may be cited as Uniform Commercial Code-Negotiable Instruments.
(Source: P.A. 87-582.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2023 · leading case: Cirrincione v. Westminster Gardens Ltd. Partnership
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cirrincione v. Westminster Gardens Ltd. Partnership (2004) illappct “Checks are negotiable instruments and are subject to the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code—Negotiable Instruments (the Code) (810 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2000)). Under the Code, there cannot be an alteration on a check, leading to the conclusion of fraud, where the…”
Falk v. Northern Trust Co. (2001) illappct “In his second amended complaint, the plaintiff requested an accounting and alleged causes of action against the Bank in negligence; under the Fiduciary Obligations Act (the Act) (760 ILCS 65/7, 8 (West 1992)); and under the UCC-Negotiable Instruments (810 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq.…”
Guterman Partners Energy, LLC v. Bridgeview Bank Group (2018) illappct “Second, defendant alleged that the sale of the loan documents was governed by article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) ( 810 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2014) ), which did not require a determination as to the "owner" *100 of the note.”
Guterman Partners Energy, LLC v. Bridgeview Bank Group (2018) illappct “Second, defendant alleged that the sale of the loan documents was governed by article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (Code) (810 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2014)), which did not require a determination as to the “owner” of the note.”
Smith v. Haran (1995) illappct “(now, as amended, 810 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 1992))) create a rebuttable presumption that consideration was given in exchange for the Instrument; (3) the circuit court erred in excluding the testimony of the Harans pursuant to the Dead-Man's Act (Ill.”
Western & Lake Check Cashers, LLC v. Propane Pete, LLC (2023) illappct · cites it 2× “The dispositive issues raised are (1) whether plaintiff was a holder in due course of the check; (2) if plaintiff was a holder in due course, whether defendant’s obligation to pay the check was discharged under the Uniform Commercial Code—Negotiable Instruments (Code) (810 ILCS…”
Pensco Trust Co. v. Urbanczyk (2023) illappct “As such, it is governed by article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (810 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2012)). Id.”
Parkway Bank and Trust Co. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (2013) illappct “¶ 10 The Uniform Commercial Code (the UCC) (810 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2010)) governs the outcome of this case.”
Kasongo v. American General Life Insurance Company (2020) ilnd “810 ILCS 5/3-101, et seq. In two recent cases that also involved third-party forgeries of insurance checks, the Illinois Appellate Court relied on the UCC to hold that plaintiffs could not recover money from insurance company defendants where third- party bad actors stole the…”
Cirrincione v. Westminster Gardens Limited Partnership (2004) illappct “Checks are negotiable instruments and are subject to the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code - Negotiable Instruments (the Code) (810 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq . (West 2000)). Under the Code, there cannot be an alteration on a check, leading to the conclusion of fraud, where the…”
Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp. v. Bank One, N.A. (2004) illappct “The current, revised version of UCC Article 3, which is the article pertaining to negotiable instruments (810 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq . (West 2000)), does not include a definition of the term "imposter," and the prior, or original version of Article 3 included only a brief official…”
1st Nat'l Bk. v. MidAmerica Fed. Savings Bk. (1999) illappct “The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of First Chicago and entered a money judgment in its favor in the amount of $157,611.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.