Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 735 F.2d 380 - Colonial Leasing Company of New England Inc v. Pugh Brothers Garage Colonial Leasing Company of New England Inc

Colonial Leasing Company of New England Inc v. Pugh Brothers Garage Colonial Leasing Company of New England Inc’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
3
states following
July 2002
most recently cited

2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 2002

2 district · 4 state decisions

60198419902000decided

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 International Shoe Co. v. Washington · M/s Bremen v. Zapata off-Shore Company · Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Associates, Inc. · Reeves v. Chem Industrial Company · State Ex Rel. Jones v. Crookham

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Under Oregon law, a choice-of-forum clause will be given effect unless it would be unfair or unreasonable to do so. Reeves v. Chem Industrial Co., 262 Or. 95, 101 , 495 P.2d 729, 732 (1972). See also The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10 , 92 S.Ct. 1907, 1913 , 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972) (forum-selection clauses “are prima facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be ‘unreasonable’ under the circumstances”). We agree with the district court’s analysis in Colonial Leasing Co. v. Best, 552 F.Supp. 605 (D.Or.1982), that the standard of “unfair or unreasonable” is designed to invalidate clauses such as those in question here. The evidence disclosed in each case that there was in fact no bargaining on the clause in question. It was contained in a form contract in fine print at the bottom of a page. The Oregon Supreme Court indicated in Reeves that this sort of take-it-or-leave-it clause will be disregarded. 262 Or. at 101 , 495 P.2d at 732 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Boiled down, [defendant] in Idaho signed a contract with a corporation doing business in Oregon and sent some monthly payments to that corporation at its place of business in Oregon.”
    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.