Davis v. M.L.G. Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 13 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Andersen v. Highland House Co. (2001), Wilkie v. Auto-Owners Insurance (2003)
5 federal appellate · 13 district · 37 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 58 Cal. 2d 862 - Steven v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. · Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. · Kievit v. Loyal Protective Life Insurance · A & M PRODUCE CO. v. FMC Corp. · Radiology Professional Corp. v. Trinidad Area Health Ass'n
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a standardized agreement executed by parties of unequal bargaining power; (2) lack of opportunity to read or become familiar with the document before signing it; (3) use of fine print in the portion of the contract containing the provision; (4) absence of evidence that the provision was commercially reasonable; (5) the terms of the contract; (6) the relationship of the parties, including factors of assent, unfair surprise, and notice; and (7) all the circumstances surrounding the formation of the contract,”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““evidence of some overreaching on the part of one of the parties such as that which results from an inequality in bargaining power or under other circumstances in which there is an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties, together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to that party.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“insurance contracts as follows: 27 If there remains any doubt, the terms should be read in the sense which the insurer had reason to believe they would be interpreted by the ordinary reader and purchaser. The test to be applied is not what the insurer intended by his words, but what the ordinary reader and purchaser would have understood them to mean. 28 The scope of an agreement is not to be determined in a vacuum. Id. at 990. Rather, the court looks to the reasonable expectations of an ordinary policyholder to give effect to the ordinary and popular meaning of words. Id.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.