State of Tennessee v. Christopher Shane Poole - Concurring
This text of State of Tennessee v. Christopher Shane Poole - Concurring (State of Tennessee v. Christopher Shane Poole - Concurring) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs April 22, 2008
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTOPHER SHANE POOLE
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dickson County No. CR8729 Robert E. Burch, Judge
No. M2007-01041-CCA-R3-CD - Filed May 29, 2008
JAMES CURWOOD WITT , JR., J., concurring.
I fully concur in the excellent majority opinion. I would simply add that Tennessee commercial law supports the majority’s conclusion that the payor bank held a valid claim against the defendant. Generally, “an unauthorized signature is ineffective except as the signature of the unauthorized signer in favor of a person who in good faith pays the instrument or takes it for value.” T.C.A § 47-3-403(a) (2001).
___________________________________ JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Shane Poole - Concurring, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-christopher-shane-poole-concu-tenncrimapp-2008.