Legal Opinion

O'CONNOR v. Televideo System, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 7, 1990No. H004798PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

ELIA, J.

Appellant Televideo System, Inc., appeals from a judgment awarding respondent Mary Ellen O’Connor, as assignee of the claim of Pousto Corporation, $43,800 plus finance charges of $21,024, calculated at 18 percent per annum from August 1985 through April 30, 1988. Televideo’s sole point on appeal is that the finance charges violated the prohibition against usury. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural Background

Pousto, a computer circuit board assembly house operating under the name of Unitronic, performed assembly work for Televideo, a computer manufacturer. After the work was…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Garrett v. Coast & Southern Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Milana v. Credit Discount Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Verbeck v. ClymerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Burr v. Capital Reserve Corp.California Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Penziner v. West American Finance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1933

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Southwest Concrete Products v. Gosh Construction Corp.California Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Mattvidi Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Nationsbank of Virginia, N.A.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1994
  3. Californians for Population Stabilization v. Hewlett-Packard Co.California Court of Appeal · 1997
  4. Krechuniak v. NoorzoyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
  5. Crissey v. Alaska USA Federal Credit UnionAlaska Supreme Court · 1991

6 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