Howell v. Mid-State Homes, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
HOWARD, Chief Judge.
Does the fact that the price for a sale on credit is higher than the seller would require if the sale was for cash indicate the existence of usury? That is the issue involved in this case.
Appellants file this appeal claiming the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the appellees and denying their motion for summary judgment. Appellants allege there was still a genuine issue as to a material fact which precluded the entry of summary judgment and that the record disclosed appellants were entitled to judgment.
The undisputed facts are as follows:…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sloan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1957
- Lloyd v. GutgsellNebraska Supreme Court · 1963
- Dennis v. Sears, Roebuck & CompanyTennessee Supreme Court · 1969
- Moore v. MarkCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1970
3Cited by5 opinions
- Johnson v. Sears Roebuck & Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1973
- Stonebraker v. ZinnWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1982
- Cecil v. Allied Stores Corp.Montana Supreme Court · 1973
- Woods v. Evans Products Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1978
- Cecil v. Allied StoresMontana Supreme Court · 1973