Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 Ga. App. 118 - Harrison v. Arrendale

113 Ga. App. 118 - Harrison v. Arrendale’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
3
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2010

12 state decisions

50196619701980199020002010decided

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 Bank of Lumpkin v. Farmers State Bank · Walton v. Johnson · Loganville Banking Co. v. Forrester · Bellerby v. Goodwyn · Simpson v. Charters

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It might be argued, and with cogent reason, that it should make no difference whether plaintiffs’ assumption of Richards’ debts was voluntary or involuntary so long as defendant received a collateral advantage which plaintiffs were under no obligation to give him. We think that in the absence of consideration moving to plaintiffs in return for their assumption of Richards’ debts this argument would have merit. But here, the jury could have found that such consideration, other than the loans to plaintiffs themselves, actually existed. Whenever plaintiffs executed a new note, it was customary between the parties that defendant return the checks evidencing Richards’ indebtedness. Presumably, it was thereby intended to release Richards, and if so, this constituted additional consideration to plaintiffs. Where an excess is paid, or contracted to be paid, for other good and valuable considerations beyond the mere use of money not interposed as a device to cover usury, the excess is not usury. Atlanta Mining & C. Co. v. Gwyer, 48 Ga. 9, 11 (2); Simpson v. Charters, 188 Ga. 842, 849 , 5 S.E.2d 27 , supra; Sledd v. Pilot Life Ins. Co., 52 Ga.App. 326, 327 , 183 S.E. 199 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “called into chambers by the judge presiding in said case and their assistance was requested in preparing the forms of verdict to be submitted to the jury impaneled to try said case. After discussion between counsel for each party and the judge presiding in said case the forms of verdict as contained in the court’s charge were prepared by the judge presiding in said case and submitted to counsel for each party for approval and at said time neither counsel offered any objections to the form of verdict prepared by the court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.