466 F. Supp. 689 - Bennett v. Behring Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably 38 Cal. 3d 913 - Perdue v. Crocker National Bank (1985), 22 Cal. App. 4th 205 - California Grocers Assn. v. Bank of America (1994)
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 20 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 15 U.S.C. § 1701 (Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 42 U.S.C. § 415 (§ 215 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Hume v. United States · Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. · Marble Company v. Ripley · 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. Whether a meaningful choice is present in a particular case can only be determined by consideration of all the circumstances surrounding the transaction. In many cases the meaningfulness of the choice is negated by a gross inequality of bargaining power. The manner in which the contract was entered into is also relevant to this consideration. Did each party to the contract, considering his obvious education or lack of it, have a reasonable opportunity to understand the terms of the contract, or were the important terms hidden in a maze of fine print or minimized by deceptive sales practices? (Emphasis supplied).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. (2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he equitable theory of unconscionability has never been utilized to allow for the affirmative recovery of money damages. The Court finds that neither the common law of Florida, nor that of any other state, empowers a court addressing allegations of unconscionability to do more than refuse enforcement of the unconscionable section or sections of the contract so as to avoid an unconscionable result.”
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.