Legal Opinion

Chapman v. Farr

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 23, 1982No. Civ. 48352PublishedCited by 20 opinions

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

  1. Younger v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Penziner v. West American Finance Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Callet v. AliotoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Governing Board of Rialto Unified School District v. MannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Southern Service Co. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. People v. AcostaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  2. People v. BradleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  3. Brenton v. Metabolife International, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2004
  4. Petropoulos v. PetropoulosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
  5. Zipperer v. County of Santa ClaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API