Witmer v. Exxon Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Seus v. John Nuveen & Co. (1998), 341 Pa. Super. 42 - Germantown Manufacturing Co. v. Rawlinson (1985)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 68 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 Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Razumic · K & C, Inc. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. · Gordon v. Random House, Inc · 260 Pa. Super. 537 - Witmer v. Exxon Corp.
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 127 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.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“Appellants allege that Exxon was able to include the rental reopener clause in several of the leases because of its economic superiority. This Court and the federal courts in Pennsylvania, however, have refused to hold contracts unconscionable simply because of a disparity in bargaining power. See, e.g., Goldinger v. Boron Oil Co., 375 F.Supp. 400 (W.D.Pa.1974), aff’d 511 F.2d 1393 (3d Cir. 1975); K & C, Inc. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 437 Pa. 303 , 263 A.2d 390 (1970). Nor, in any case, could we conclude that the terms of the rental reopener clause are unreasonably favorable to Exxon. Exxon was not free under the clause to raise appellants’ rents at its whim, but could do so only once during the lease term and to a maximum of one cent per gallon.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(2-A) Rental Reopener Clause: Exxon may give written notice of an intent to adjust or change the rental (and/or method of calculating the rental) Lessee is to pay for this lease specifying the effective date (which shall not be less than sixty days after the date of said notice) and the amount and other details of said adjustment. If the proposed adjustment or change is not satisfactory to Lessee, and Exxon and Lessee fail to reach agreement in that regard within thirty days after the date of said notice, then Lessee may terminate this lease upon written notice to Exxon as provided in article (1) above or upon such shorter time period as may be elected by Lessee. If within 60 days following the date of Exxon’s notice Lessee has not elected to terminate this lease, then the rental adjustment or change proposed by Exxon shall become effective on the date specified in such notice. Exxon’s right to adjust or change the rent shall be limited as follows: 1. Exxon may not give notice of an adjustment or change until at least 90 days of the lease term shall have expired. 2. Exxon can give notice of a rent adjustment or change as provided in this Article (2) only once during the term of this lease specified above except that this provision shall not abridge or alter the rent adjustment procedures under Article (7) hereof in any way. 3. If Exxon should adjust or change the rent in a manner which results in a rent increase to Lessee, Lessee shall be under no obligation to pay Exxon a re”
1 later decision 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.