Hill v. Hawes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 state decisions

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

1. ““The statute of limitations does not bar the relief sought in this case. Under the usury statute recovery of usurious payments is limited to one year. Under the general statute of limitations actions not otherwise limited must be brought within three years. However, no statute puts any limitations on the claim of usury used as a defense in a suit based on the usurious obligation. A usurer cannot by delaying suit on a note acquire the right to collect the usurious payments forfeited by the statute. In substance, this suit may be regarded as one for a declaratory judgment that the plaintiff’s intestate had a complete defense to her obligation on the note. A declaration that there is a complete defense to the note is not barred by the statute.” 144 F.2d at 513 (footnotes omitted). (Emphasis supplied.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Luckenbach Steamship Co. v. United States · King v. Kitchen Magic, Inc.

2. ““The defense is that the $2,286.80 was advanced by the defendant, not as a loan, but as the purchase price of a previously executed $3,600 note which he testified he bought in due course at a 40% discount from a man named Robinson. This note was signed by the Byrds and secured by a trust deed on the same property. Robinson was the payee. Defendant testifies that he did not know either the Byrds or Robinson but bought the note through a man named McKinley, who represented himself to be the agent of Robinson. “We do not consider this evidence sufficient to show that the defendant was a holder in due course of the original note which he claims to have purchased. The circumstances surrounding the transaction constitute a badge of fraud which is not rebutted. Competent businessmen do not purchase notes in substantial sums executed by parties unknown to them whose credit they have not investigated. This circumstance, coupled with the fact that the defendant claims to have bought a note which was amply secured at the outrageous discount of about 40%, makes a prima facie showing of usury which must be explained before the purchaser can be found to be a holder in due course. * * (Emphasis supplied.) [Id. at 169]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Katz v. Simcha Company, Inc. · 488 F. Supp. 177 - Greene v. Gibraltar Mortgage Investment Corp.