Rose v. Wheeler’s Empirical Analysis
1934
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 1990 · most notably 27 Cal. 2d 335 - Milana v. Credit Discount Co. (1945), 133 Cal. App. 2d 242 - Abbot v. Stevens (1955)
30 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 Seeman v. Philadelphia Warehouse Co. · Terry Trading Corp. v. Barsky · Verbeck v. Clymer · 218 Mo. App. 68 - General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Weinrich · Clemens v. Crane
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘In a usurious transaction, there must be a loan of money, which is to be repaid to the lender, with compensation for its use in an amount constituting a charge in excess of the highest permissible rate. And as a necessary concomitant there must exist the corrupt intent to exact the illegal charge for the use of the money lent. (Lamb v. Herndon, 97 Cal.App. 193, 197 [ 275 P. 503 ].) “ ‘The presumptions of law are in favor of legality; and therefore if the transaction in question is open to two constructions, one making for legality, the other for illegality, then in the absence of evidence pointing clearly to usury, it is the duty of the court to adopt the construction in favor of lawfulness. (Coley v. Wolcott, 103 Cal.App. 140 [ 284 P. 241 ]; Shelley v. Byers, 73 Cal.App. 44, 57 [ 238 P. 177 ].)’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The reason is that the statute against usury is striking at and forbidding the exaction or receipt of more than a specified legal rate for the hire of money and not of anything else; and a purchaser is not like the needy borrower, a victim of a rapacious lender, since he can refrain from the purchase if he does not choose to pay the price asked by the seller.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“To infect a transaction with the taint of usury, there must exist the corrupt purpose on one side to lend money at usurious interest and on the other side to borrow on usurious terms dictated by the lender.”
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.