Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
498 F.3d 976 · 2007
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2020 · most notably At&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011), AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011)
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 9 U.S.C. § 16 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 2 · 9 U.S.C. § 3 · 9 U.S.C. § 4
Relies on Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc · Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. · Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[W]hen the [class action] waiver [in an arbitration agreement] is found in a consumer contract of adhesion in a setting in which disputes between the contracting parties predictably involve small amounts of damages, and when it is alleged that the party with the superior bargaining power has carried out a scheme to deliberately cheat large numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money, then. . . the waiver becomes in practice the exemption of the party ‘from responsibility for [its] own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another.’ . . . Under these circumstances, such waivers are unconscionable under California law and should not be enforced.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction ... shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S. C. §2.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he doctrine has both a ‘procedural’ and a ‘substantive’ element, the former focusing on ‘oppression’ or ‘surprise’ due to unequal bargaining power, the latter on ‘overly harsh’ or ‘one-sided’ results. The procedural element of an unconscionable contract generally takes the form of a contract of adhesion, which, imposed and drafted by the party of superior bargaining strength, relegates to the subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it. Substantively unconscionable terms may take various forms, but may generally be described as unfairly one-sided.”
3 later decisions 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.