Taylor v. Butler’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2021 · most notably Cordova v. World Finance Corp. of NM (2009), Salley v. Option One Mortgage Corp. (2007)
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 21 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
Applies 9 U.S.C. § 12 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan · Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. · Volt Information Sciences Inc v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University · Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Enforcement of a contract is generally refused on grounds of unconscionability where the “inequality of the bargain is so manifest as to shock the judgment of a person of common sense, and where the terms are so oppressive that no reasonable person would make them on the one hand, and no honest and fair person would accept them on the other.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In determining whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate, “courts generally ... should apply ordinary state-law principles that govern formation of contracts,” First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944 , 115 S.Ct. 1920 , 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995). As the United State Supreme Court noted in Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson: Section 2 [of the FAA] gives States a method for protecting consumers against unfair pressure to agree to a contract with an unwanted arbitration provision. States may regulate contracts, including arbitration clauses, under general contract law principles and they may invalidate an arbitration clause “upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2 . 513 U.S. 265, 281 , 115 S.Ct. 834 , 130 L.Ed.2d 753 (1995). “[Generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability, may be applied to invalidate arbitration agreements without contravening” the enforcement provisions of the FAA. Doctor’s Assoc., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687 , 116 S.Ct. 1652 , 134 L.Ed.2d 902 (1996).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a judicial forum for practically all claims”
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.