Jenkins v. First American Cash Advance of Georgia, LLC’s Empirical Analysis
400 F.3d 868 · 2005
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 3 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably 223 Ill. 2d 1 - Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless, LLC (2006), Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc. (2006)
26 federal appellate · 3 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 1 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 16 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 2 · 9 U.S.C. § 4
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. · Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. · Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc. · Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘Procedural unconscionability addresses the process of making the contract, while substantive unconseionability looks to the contractual terms themselves.’ Factors relevant to the procedural un-conseionability inquiry include the bargaining power of the parties, ‘the conspicuousness and comprehensibility of the contract language, the oppressiveness of the terms, and the presence or absence of a meaningful choice.’ As for substantive unconseionability, courts consider ‘the commercial reasonableness of the contract terms, the purpose and effect of the terms, the allocation of the risks between the parties, and similar public policy concerns.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction or the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contract, transaction, or refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Arbitration Agreements expressly permit Jenkins and other consumer's to recover attorneys’ fees and expenses “if allowed by statute or applicable law.” Under the Georgia RICO statute, a prevailing plaintiff may be awarded attorney’s fees. . . . Jenkins, therefore, can presumably recover attorneys’ fees and costs if she prevails in arbitration on her Georgia RICO claim.”
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.