Chapman v. Farr
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GOFF, J. *
The trial court awarded damages, injunctive and declaratory relief to plaintiff and cross-complainants against the Frisones, defendants and cross-defendants, the appellants herein. It did so on the theory that the Frisones, through appellant Larry Frisone, loaned cross-complainants (the Farrs) $50,000 at usurious rates. Three months after judgment was entered below, the California constitutional section defining usury 1 was amended by referendum to exclude from its operation “any loans made or arranged by any person licensed as a real estate broker by the State of California…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Younger v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Penziner v. West American Finance Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
- Callet v. AliotoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Governing Board of Rialto Unified School District v. MannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Southern Service Co. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- People v. AcostaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- People v. BradleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Brenton v. Metabolife International, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2004
- Petropoulos v. PetropoulosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Zipperer v. County of Santa ClaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.