Waters v. Min Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 14 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Rosenberg v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1999), Miller v. Cotter (2007)
11 federal appellate · 14 district · 32 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
Relies on Hume v. United States · Commonwealth v. DeCotis · Zapatha v. Dairy Mart, Inc. · First Pennsylvania Mortgage Trust v. Dorchester Savings Bank · Campbell Soup Co. v. Lojeski
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[gjross disparity in the values exchanged is an important factor to be considered in determining whether a contract is unconscionable”). 5 . Both Title VII and the ADA expressly cabin their endorsements of arbitration in cases covered by those statutes by providing that”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[It] ... has long been recognized by common law courts in this country and in England. “Historically, a [contract] was considered unconscionable if it was ‘such as no man in his senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair man would accept on the other.’ Later, a contract was determined unenforceable because unconscionable when ‘the sum total of its provisions drives too hard a bargain for a court of conscience to assist.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Unconscionability must be determined on a case-by-case basis, with particular attention to whether the challenged provision could result in oppression and unfair surprise to the disadvantaged party and not to allocation of risk because of 'superior bargaining power.'”
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.