Hoyt v. Hoffman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• interpreting an earlier version of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.130[1] [2007]
• reversing the defendant's conviction because the worthless check was issued in payment of an overdue account and conviction would be inconsistent with the purpose of Nevada's Worthless Check Act, which is \to charge a defendant who obtains a benefit as a result of the check\
• reversing the defendant’s conviction because the worthless check was issued in payment of an overdue account and conviction would be inconsistent with the purpose of Nevada’s Worthless Cheek Act, which is “to charge a defendant who obtains a benefit as a result of the check”
• where a check was given on an open account for meat which had been purchased at wholesale
• “The legislature did not intend to make it a crime to issue a worthless check absent damage or injury to the payee thereof.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).