Beasley v. Cahoon’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
2 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently February 1979 · most notably Waybright v. Duval County (1940), 280 So. 2d 426 - Newman v. Carson (1973)
2 district · 26 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · Whitney v. People of State of California · Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co. · Miller v. Wilson · Central Lumber Company v. State of South Dakota
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I think the answer to all these questions is that both Acts must stand. This is so because the 1925 Act would be valid if we had no usury statute at all, and were governed solely by the common law. As has been pointed out, at common law charging excessive or unreasonable interests, or usury, was no criminal offense whatsoever. Hence the mere presence on the statute books of an earlier usury law conflicting (if we put it that way) with the 1925 Act, does not render the last Act of the Legislature invalid, if the 1925 Act would be valid in relation to the common law, on the subject dealt with.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Beasley v. Coleman“My view is that Chapter 10177, Acts of 1925, is in pari materia with all the other usury laws of Florida. Amos v. Mathews, 99 Fla. 1 , 126 Sou. Rep. 308 . And being no more than a permissible exception to the original operation of the general usury laws, an exception that could have been written into such general usury laws in the first instance, I am unable to see upon what basis the 1925 Act must now fall on the ground of an alleged denial of the equal protection of the laws.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Beasley v. Coleman
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.