48 Wash. App. 172 - Brown v. Giger’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1603 (§ 104 of the Truth in Lending Act)
Relies on 105 Wash. 2d 120 - State v. Hornaday · 62 Wash. 2d 771 - Clausing v. Virginia Lee Homes, Inc. · 38 Wash. App. 921 - Aetna Finance Co. v. Darwin · 42 Wash. App. 559 - Conrad v. Smith · 96 Wash. 2d 722 - Rouse v. Peoples Leasing Company
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[P]ersons may not plead the defense of usury nor maintain any action thereon or therefor if the transaction was primarily for agricultural, commercial, investment, or business purposes: Provided, however, That this section shall not apply to a consumer transaction of any amount. Consumer transactions, as used in this section, shall mean transactions primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Here, it is undisputed that Giger's specific intended use of the funds was to loan them to a friend, at no interest, at no business advantage to herself. It is undisputed that she had no pecuniary interest in Ebling's subsequent business use of the funds. She expected no profit. Her specific purpose was therefore personal in nature.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“more properly characterized as personal in nature.”
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.