Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 23 CALAPP3D 779 - Buck v. Dahlgren

Buck v. Dahlgren’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
3
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 2015

13 state decisions

8019721980199020002010decided

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 10 Cal. 2d 160 - Penziner v. West American Finance Co. · Haines v. Commercial Mortgage Co. · Burr v. Capital Reserve Corp. · 68 Cal. 2d 590 - Fazzi v. Peters · Stock v. Meek

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

  1. “(a) Every person, company, association or corporation, who for any loan or forbearance of money, goods or things in action shall have paid or delivered any greater sum or value than is allowed to be received under the preceding sections, one and two, may either in person or his or its personal representative, recover in an action at law against the person, company, association or corporation who shall have taken or received the same, or his or its personal representative, treble the amount of the money so paid or value delivered in violation of said sections, providing such action shall be brought within one year after such payment or delivery.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In order to effectuate the statutory policy of protection, the courts have also regularly held a borrower and a lender are not in pan delicto in a usurious transaction and the lender may not assert an estoppel against the borrower simply because the borrower took the initiative in seeking the loan, knew of the usurious nature of the transaction, and paid usurious interest without protest.”
    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.