Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 424 FSUPP 442 - Jump v. Manchester Data Sciences Corp.

Jump v. Manchester Data Sciences Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2018

2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

8019761980199020002010decided

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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)

Relies on Fullington v. Ozark Poultry Supply Co. · Wenninger v. Mitchell · Drake v. Greener · Vondras v. Titanium Research & Development Co. · Shelton v. M & a Electric Power Cooperative

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The general rule is that courts will not declare an agreement to be void simply because it is unwise. 17 Am.Jr.2d Contracts § 192 (1964). If, however, the bargain ‘is a bargain “such as no man in his senses, and not under a delusion, would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair man would accept on the other,” ’ a court will find the agreement to be unconscionable and refuse to enforce the same. Wenninger v. Mitchell, 139 Mo.App. 420 , 122 S.W. 1130, 1132 (1909). See also, Ball v. Reyburn, 136 Mo.App. 546 , 118 S.W. 524 (1909); 14 Williston on Contracts § 1632 (ed. 1972) [tests of un-conscionability include the above cited rule and that ‘. . . no decent, fairminded person would view the ensuing result without being possessed of a profound sense of injustice. . .’] Cf., Drake v. Greener, 523 S.W.2d 601 (Mo.App.1975) [‘... where a person has been induced to part with a thing of value for little or no consideration, equity will seize upon the slightest circumstances of fraud, duress, or mistake for the purpose of administering justice in the particular case.’].””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “when, as and if defendant corporation had the capability of repaying the advances from profits or cash flow.”
    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.