97 Cal. App. 193 - Lamb v. Herndon’s Empirical Analysis
1929
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Gagnon Co., Inc. v. Nevada Desert Inn (1955), 14 Cal. 2d 47 - Goddard v. Security Title Insurance & Guarantee Co. (1939)
36 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 Merritt v. Campbell · Cockle v. Flack · Armstrong v. Sacramento Valley R. Co. · Westbay v. Gray · Douglass v. Boulevard Co.
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The case appears to have been tried upon the theory that under the pleadings the court had the right, not only to consider the written agreements, but also extraneous facts and circumstances, including prior negotiations, for the purpose of determining whether or not the transaction was or was not usurious. A corrupt intent is one of the necessary elements of usury (Webb on Usury, 372; Tyler on Usury, 238), and to enable it to determine whether or not the intent existed the court had the right to admit in evidence all the surrounding circumstances and especially the negotiations that preceded the transaction. For as was said by the court in the case of Douglass v. Boulevard Co. et al., 91 Conn. 601 [ 100 Atl. 1067 ]: ‘ Every circumstance surrounding or connected with the transaction is material, if in any manner it will reveal the intention of the parties. ’ (Lowenstein & Sons v. British-American Mfg. Co., 300 Fed. 853 .)””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It is also a general principle that when payment of full legal interest is subject to a contingency so that the lender’s profit is wholly or partially put1 in hazard the interest so contingently payable need not be limited to the legal rate, providing the parties are contracting in good faith and without the intent to avoid the statute against usury.””
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.