Wooton v. Coerber’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably 2 Cal. 3d 594 - West Pico Furniture Co. v. Pacific Finance Loans (1970), 270 Cal. App. 2d 543 - Domarad v. Fisher & Burke, Inc. (1969)
35 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 133 Cal. App. 2d 242 - Abbot v. Stevens · 124 Cal. App. 2d 425 - Martin v. Ajax Construction Co. · 100 Cal. App. 2d 429 - Calimpco, Inc. v. Warden · 97 Cal. App. 193 - Lamb v. Herndon · Hinton v. Keefe
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Restatement of the Law of Contracts, section 527, at page 1024, and comment (a) thereon, are as follows: ‘A promise, made as the consideration for a loan or for extending the maturity of a pecuniary debt, to give the creditor a greater profit than the highest permissible rate of interest upon the occurrence of a condition, is not usurious if the repayment promised on failure of the condition to occur is materially less than the amount of the loan or debt with the highest permissible interest, unless a transaction is given this form as a colorable device to obtain a greater profit than is permissible. In that case it is usurious. “ ‘Comment: a. Usury laws do not forbid the taking of business chances in the employment of money. A creditor who takes the chance of losing all or part of the sum to which he would be entitled if he bargained for the return of his money with the highest permissible rate of interest is allowed to contract for greater profit. On the other hand it is not permissible to use this form of contract as a device for obtaining usurious profit. If the probability of the occurrence of the contingency on which diminished payment is promised is remote, or if the diminution should the contingency occur is slight as compared with the possible profit to be obtained if the contingency does not occur, the transaction is presumably usurious. ’ “6. Williston on Contracts (rev. ed.), section 1692, page 4786: ‘It is not usury to advance money which is to be repayable only”
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.