Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 290 F.3d 631 - Snowden v. Checkpoint Check Cashing

Snowden v. Checkpoint Check Cashing’s Empirical Analysis

290 F.3d 631 · 2002

Citation profile

103
cited by 103 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

33 federal appellate · 5 district · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 103 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably 36 Cal. 4th 148 - Discover Bank v. Superior Court (2005), Walther v. Sovereign Bank (2005)

33 federal appellate · 5 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 11 states

770200220102020decided

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 15 U.S.C. § 1640 (§ 130 of the Truth in Lending Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 16 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 2

Relies on Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. · Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. · Crane v. Stern · Hooters of America, Inc. v. Phillips · Sandvik AB v. Advent International 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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[w]e [] reject Snowden's argument that the Arbitration Agreement is unenforceable as unconscionable because without the class action vehicle, she will be unable to maintain her legal representation given the small amount of her individual damages”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he fact that the appellees waived their right to a jury trial does not require the court to evaluate the agreement to arbitrate under a more demanding standard. It is clear that a party may waive her right to adjudicate disputes in a judicial forum. Similarly, the right to a jury trial attaches in the context of judicial proceedings after it is determined that litigation should proceed before a court. Thus, the “loss of the right to a jury trial is a necessary and fairly obvious consequence • of an agreement to arbitrate.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “consider issues relating to the making and performance of the agreement to arbitrate”
    2 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.