Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Marx v. Whitney National Bank

Supreme Court of Louisiana
713 So. 2d 1142 (1998)


Facts

David Marx (plaintiff) maintained a checking account at Whitney National Bank (Whitney) (defendant). Whitney sent Marx monthly bank statements. In January 1995, Marx’s bank statement revealed that five forged checks had been cashed against his account. However, Marx did not review the January bank statement and did not become aware of these checks. Marx also did not review the next three monthly bank statements sent by Whitney, and failed to notice additional forged checks cashed against his account. In April 1995, two of Marx’s children were added as joint owners to his bank account. In May 1995, Marx’s son noticed that five forged checks were listed on the monthly bank statement. Marx reported the forged checks to Whitney and identified his grandson as the maker and payee of the forged checks. Marx requested that Whitney refund the amount of the forged checks to his account, but Whitney refused. Marx sued Whitney, asserting that Whitney was required to credit back to his account the funds paid out for the last five forged checks. Both Marx and Whitney agreed that Marx’s grandson had access to Marx’s bank account during a visit and that Marx was negligent for failing to review his bank statements from January to April. Marx filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. The court of appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Marcus, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 177,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.