Gershman Investment Corp. v. Danforth
Supreme Court of Missouri
1Opinion of the Court
HOLMAN, Judge.
In this declaratory judgment action plaintiff, for itself and others similarly situated, sought a judgment declaring that certain opinions of the defendant Attorney General which ruled that § 362.195 1 is unconstitutional are erroneous and further declaring that said statute “is constitutional in all respects.” The petition also prayed that defendant be enjoined from instituting quo warranto proceedings against plaintiff and other corporations making FHA loans at interest rates in excess of 8% per annum. The trial court did not grant the injunctive relief but adjudged that the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- LAWYERS'ASSOCIATION OF ST. LOUIS v. City of St. LouisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1956
- Triplett v. Grundy Electric Cooperative, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1965
- Corken v. WorkmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1936
- Tootle v. TootleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1962
3Cited by12 opinions
- Gershman Investment Corporation v. DanforthSupreme Court of Missouri · 1974
- State Ex Rel. Toedebusch Transfer, Inc. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of Missouri · 1975
- State ex rel. Cervantes v. BloomMissouri Court of Appeals · 1972
- Mudgett v. PetersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1972
- State v. KoenigMissouri Court of Appeals · 2003
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.