Miner v. Walden’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently November 2009 · most notably 51 Cal. App. 4th 1519 - Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc. (1997), Gray v. American Express Co. (1984)
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on State Ex Rel. Frohmiller v. Hendrix · Beakey v. Knutson
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[W]e commence with a basic premise that arbitration is consensual in nature. The fundamental assumption of arbitration is that it may be invoked as an alternative to the settlement of disputes through the judicial process `solely by reason of an exercise of choice of (all) parties'.... "Such agreement to arbitrate has been held to be enforceable if it had been openly and fairly entered into. In determining whether plaintiff in this case entered into such agreement, the principles governing enforcement of contracts of adhesion must be considered. Adhesion contracts refer to a standardized contract form offered to consumers of goods and services essentially on a `take it or leave it' basis, without affording the consumer a realistic opportunity to bargain, and under such conditions that the consumer cannot obtain the desired product or services except by acquiescing to the form of the contract.... ".... "The defendant doctor is a college, medical and dental school graduate. The nurses employed by him are graduates of nursing schools. Counterposed to these educated people is the plaintiff who attended school but completed an eleventh grade education. To contrast this limited educational background against that of a professional doctor and his nursing staff could be unreasonable and unconscionable. "The doctrine of unconscionability is not new to American jurisprudence. (See, e.g., Scott v. United States, 79 U.S. 443 , 12 Wall. 443 , 20 L.Ed. 438 (1870); Hume v. United States, 1”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"An arbitration agreement will not be enforced unless it is 'mutually binding'. Where an arbitration clause is not mutually binding, but rather grants one party a unilateral right to arbitrate, the court will not enforce such agreement. . . . The agreement to arbitrate in this matter purports to be an exchange of promises to arbitrate with each promise serving as consideration for the other. In return for the patient's consent to arbitrate all claims arising out of the medical relationship, the doctor agreed to arbitrate all claims except claims of money due for services rendered. In a doctor-patient relationship, the only possible claim the doctor would have is a claim of money for services rendered. This claim is specifically reserved by the doctor and excluded from the agreement.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“arbitration is consensual in nature. The fundamental assumption of arbitration is that it may be invoked as an alternative to the settlement of disputes through the judicial process “solely by reason of an exercise of choice by [all] parties.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.