Burch v. Dist. Ct.’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
1 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 2021
1 district · 16 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 9 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson · Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto · 24 Cal. 4th 83 - Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc. · Round Hill General Improvement District v. Newman · 66 Cal. App. 4th 1199 - 24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sonoma Cty.
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Generally, both procedural and substantive unconscionability must be present in order for a court to exercise its discretion to refuse to enforce a contract or clause as unconscionable.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he Burches did not receive a copy of the HBW’s terms until after Double Diamond had paid the premium to enroll the Burch home in the warranty program and almost four months after they closed escrow on their home. Double Diamond told the Burches that the HBW’s issuance was “automatic” and offered extra protection for their home, when in fact the warranty limited their protection under Nevada law. The Burches did not have an opportunity to read the one-page “application” form, or the thirty-one-page HBW booklet, or to view the HBW video before signing the “application.” The arbitration clause was located on page six of the HBW booklet, after five pages of material only relevant to persons residing outside of Nevada. The Burches were not sophisticated consumers, they did not understand the HBW’s terms, and the HBW’s disclaimers were not conspicuous. Under these circumstances, the Burches did not have a meaningful opportunity to decide if they wanted to agree to the HBW’s terms, including its arbitration provision. As a result, the HBW was procedurally unconscionable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”
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.