89 Ga. App. 593 - Tribble v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2012
19 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 First National Bank of Washington v. Whitman · Missouri Trust Co v. Krumseig · Hackfeld Company v. United States · Dumas v. State · United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Clarke
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Our courts have also consistently recognized that, where the profit received by the lender, by whatever name it may be called, and whether lawful on its face, or not, is in reality a contrivance or device to obtain an amount greater than lawful interest, and is-made with intent to violate the usury laws, the transaction is illegal, and that the name by which it is called is altogether immaterial. Bailey v. Newberry, 52 Ga.App. 693 , 184 S.E. 357 ; McDaniel v. Bank of Bethlehem, 22 Ga.App. 223 , 95 S.E. 724 ; Bank of Lumpkin v. Farmers’ State Bank, 161 Ga. 801 , 132 S.E. 221 ; Fishburne v. Hartsfield Loan & Savings Co., 38 Ga. App. 784 , 145 S.E. 495 ; Knight v. State, 64 Ga.App. 693 , 14 S.E.2d 225 ; Peoples Bank v. Mayo, 61 Ga.App. 877 (2), 8 S.E.2d 405 . As stated in Southern Loan & Investment Co. v. State, 68 Ga.App. 75 , 22 S.E.2d 108 : ‘In determining whether. a contract is usurious the substance of the transaction will be critically examined, for the name by which the transaction is called is wholly immaterial where it appears that its foundation was the loan of money.; and the question whether one intended to exact usury under cover of a contrivance or device, or whether the charge alleged in the contract was a bona fide one for value received, is for the jury to determine.’ Justice Bleckley, in Pope v. Marshall, 78 Ga. 635, 640 , 4 S.E. 116, 118 , perceptively stated that ‘The theory that a contract will be usurious or not, according to the kind of paper bag it is pu”
2 later decisions 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.