Faber v. Menard, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
367 F.3d 1048 · 2004
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 12 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Kristian v. Comcast Corp. (2006), Adler v. Fred Lind Manor (2005)
18 federal appellate · 12 district · 10 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 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 9 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. · Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph · Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams · PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. v. Book · Blair v. Scott Specialty Gases
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] fee-splitting arrangement may be unconscionable if information specific to the circumstances indicates that fees are cost-prohibitive and preclude the vindication of statutory rights in an arbitral forum”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under Iowa law, the burden of proof that a particular provision or contract is unconscionable rests on the party claiming it is unconscionable. In re Estate of Ascherl, 445 N.W.2d 391, 392 (Iowa Ct.App.1989). The Iowa Supreme Court has established that we should analyze the following factors of unconscionability: (1) assent; (2) unfair surprise; (3) notice; (4) disparity of bargaining power; and (5) substantive unfairness. Home Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Campney, 357 N.W.2d 613, 618 (Iowa 1984). The ultimate conclusion of whether a provision is unconscionable is to be made “in view of all the circumstances.” C & J Fertilizer, Inc. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 227 N.W.2d 169, 181 (Iowa 1975). A bargain is substantively unfair and therefore unconscionable “if it is such as no person in his or her senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair person would accept on the other.” Home Federal, 357 N.W.2d at 619-20 . A provision will be invalidated if it is a “nefarious provision, inimical to the public good.” Id. at 618 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“has the authority to enforce substantive statutory rights even if those rights are in conflict with contractual limitations in the agreement that would otherwise apply.”
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.