Schwartz v. Comcast Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 9 U.S.C. § 16 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 2 · 9 U.S.C. § 4
Relies on Par-Knit Mills, Inc. v. Stockbridge Fabrics Co. · Simeone v. Simeone · Lloyd v. Hovensa, LLC · Gass v. Virgin Islands Telephone Corp. · China Minmetals Materials Import & Export Co. v. Chi Mei Corp.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is true that in some cases, a party is excused from the terms of a contract where he never had access to the contract and thus could not make himself aware of its terms. Quiles [v. Fin. Exch. Co.], 879 A.2d [281,] 287 [ (Pa.Super.Ct.2005) ]. However, in this case the terms of the contract were available to [the plaintiff] via the web site, and thus they are binding, despite the fact that he was unaware of them.”
1 later decision 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.