Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 430 F. Supp. 1064 - Cenance v. Bohn Ford, Inc.

430 F. Supp. 1064 - Cenance v. Bohn Ford, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
January 1982
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1601 (§ 102 of the Truth in Lending Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1604 (§ 105 of the Truth in Lending Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1614 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1640 (§ 130 of the Truth in Lending Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1641 (§ 131 of the Truth in Lending Act)

Relies on Mourning v. Family Publications Service, Inc. · Meyers v. Clearview Dodge Sales, Inc. · Grant v. Imperial Motors

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

  1. ““It is possible to indulge in semantic pilpul about whether a charge for recording a mortgage is embraced within the phrase ‘license, title, and registration fees.’ But, however common parlance or dictionaries may treat the terms, Section 226.4 of the Regulations distinguishes the two types of charges for Truth in Lending purposes. [The court then referred to subsections b(l) and b(4), noting that b(l) deals with charges for perfecting security interests while b(4) deals with license, title, and registration fees.] These separate definitions serve to differentiate charges paid to perfect mortgages from registration fees. Hence, the disclosure statement fails to itemize the charge for recordation and is deficient.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Section 226.6(d) of Regulation Z provides: If there is more than one creditor or lessor in a transaction, each creditor or lessor shall be clearly identified and shall be responsible for making only those disclosures required by this Part which are within his knowledge and the purview of his relationship with the customer or lessee. If two or more creditors or lessors make a joint disclosure, each creditor or lessor shall be'clearly identified. The disclosures required under paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 226.8 shall be made by the seller if he extends or arranges for the extension of credit. Otherwise disclosures shall be made as required under paragraphs (b) and (d) of § 226.8 or paragraph (b) of § 226.15.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “° ° whether the assignee was so involved in the original decision to extend credit that it was not merely a firm who came on the scene after a lender had extended credit and purchased the loan, innocent of the original terms of the credit relationship and the disclosure statement, but, in fact, the intended creditor from the start.” Cenance v. Bohn Ford, Inc. (E.D. La. 1977), 430 F. Supp. 1064, 1069 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.