694 So. 2d 1329 - Northcom, Ltd. v. James’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably 24 Cal. 4th 83 - Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc. (2000), Walther v. Sovereign Bank (2005)
26 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. § 1 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan · Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. · Southland Corp. v. Keating · Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson · Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[I]n a case involving a contract of adhesion, if it is not shown that the party in an inferior bargaining position had a meaningful choice of agreeing to arbitration or not, and if the superior party has reserved to itself the choice of arbitration or litigation, a court may deny the superior party's motion to compel arbitration based on the doctrines of mutuality of remedy and unconscionability."”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The element of unconscionability in the context of an arbitration clause is supplied by the fact that, by agreeing to arbitrate, a party waives his right to `a remedy by due process of law,' Ala. Const.1901, § 13, and his `right of trial by jury,' Ala. Const.1901, § 11, and U.S. Const. Amend. VII. To allow such a waiver in an adhesion contract without a showing that it was voluntarily made might well be unconscionable. Moreover, a court in this state that is asked to enforce an arbitration clause is asked to rule contrary to the prohibition in Section 10 of our Constitution `That no person shall be barred from prosecuting or defending before any tribunal in this state, by himself or counsel, any civil cause to which he is a party,' Ala. Const. 1901, § 10."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"`"Equity will not compel specific performance by a defendant, if after performance the common-law remedy of damages would be his sole security for the performance of the plaintiff's side of the contract." . . . "The court will not grant specific performance to plaintiff and at the same time leave defendant to the legal remedy of damages for possible future breaches on plaintiff's part." This rule, it is believed, covers the circumstances in equity where, according to the weight of authority, the court refuses its aid for lack of mutuality.'"”
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.