Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 103 N.M. 506 - Guthmann v. La Vida Llena

Guthmann v. La Vida Llena’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
7
states following
June 2020
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 24 district · 53 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably 195 Wis. 2d 485 - M & I First National Bank v. Episcopal Homes Management, Inc. (1995), Melody Home Manufacturing Co. v. Barnes (1987)

2 federal appellate · 24 district · 53 state decisions

36019851990200020102020decided

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 58 Cal. 2d 862 - Steven v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. · Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. · Smith v. PRICE'S CREAMERIES, DIV., ETC. · In re Estate of Friedman · 53 Cal. 2d 289 - Gold v. Salem Lutheran Home Assn.

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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “First, the agreement must occur in the form of a standardized contract prepared or adopted by one party for the acceptance of the other. Second, the party proffering the standardized contract must enjoy a superior bargaining position because the weaker party virtually cannot avoid doing business under the particular contract terms. Finally, the contract must be offered to the weaker party on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, without opportunity for bargaining.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In determining reasonableness or fairness, the primary concern must be with the terms of the contract considered in light of the circumstances existing when the contract was made. The test is not simple, nor can it be mechanically applied. The terms are to be considered "in the light of the general commercial background and the commercial needs of the particular trade or case." Corbin suggests the test as being whether the terms are "so extreme as to appear unconscionable according to the mores and business practices of the time and place."”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Substantive unconscionability relates to the content of the contract terms and whether they are illegal, contrary to public policy, or grossly unfair.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.