Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 143 Ohio App. 3d 708 - Jeffrey Mining Products, L.P. v. Left Fork Mining Co.

143 Ohio App. 3d 708 - Jeffrey Mining Products, L.P. v. Left Fork Mining Co.’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Morrison v. Circuit City Stores, Inc. (2003), Raasch v. NCR Corp. (2003)

8 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

210200120102020decided

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 Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc. v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance · 86 Ohio App. 3d 826 - Collins v. Click Camera & Video, Inc. · Smith v. Howard Johnson Co. · 131 Ohio App. 3d 172 - Hillyer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · 113 Ohio App. 3d 75 - Dorsey v. Contemporary Obstetrics & Gynecology, Inc.

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

  1. “factors bearing on the relative bargaining position of the contracting parties, including their age, education, intelligence, business acumen and experience, relative bargaining power, who drafted the contract, whether the terms were explained to the weaker party, and whether alterations in the printed terms were possible.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The unconscionability doctrine consists of two prongs: (1) substantive unconscionability, i.e., unfair and unreasonable contract terms, and (2) procedural unconscionability, i.e., individualized circumstances surrounding parties to a contract such that no voluntary meeting of the minds was possible.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[unconscionability is a question of law.”
    1 later decision 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.