Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 214 Cal. 28 - Westman v. Dye

Westman v. Dye’s Empirical Analysis

1931

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
3
states following
May 2017
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably 27 Cal. 2d 335 - Milana v. Credit Discount Co. (1945), 54 Cal. 2d 264 - Wilson v. Wilson (1960)

3 federal appellate · 35 state decisions

150193119401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Haines v. Commercial Mortgage Co. · Carter v. Carusi · Baum v. Thoms · London & San Francisco Bank v. Bandmann · Bexar Building & Loan Ass'n v. Robinson

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

  1. ““ ‘If a transaction is usurious in its inception, it remains usurious until purged by a new contract; and all future transactions connected with or growing out of the original are usurious and without valid consideration. An original taint of usury attaches to the whole family of consecutive obligations and securities growing out of the original vicious transaction; and none of the descendant obligations, however remote, can be free of the taint if the descent can be fairly traced. ’ ” “Where the original transaction is usurious, it can never become validated by subsequent dealings unless the usury is purged.” (91 C.J.S. 646, § 65.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The usurious character of the contract is not determined by the amount of interest the borrower has paid thereon, but by the amount of interest he has agreed to pay on his said indebtedness. He may not have paid a dollar of interest on his indebtedness yet if the contract calls for a greater rate of interest than that permitted by the statute, the transaction is usurious, and no interest can be collected thereon.”
    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.