Eberle v. Eberle’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Willprecht v. Willprecht (2020), Eberle v. Eberle (2010)
23 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 8 Va. App. 19 - Derby v. Derby · Radigan v. Radigan · Sommers v. Sommers · 57 Cal. App. 3d 736 - Gonzalez v. Gonzalez · Peterson v. Peterson
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An agreement is unconscionable if it is one no rational, undeluded person would make, and no honest and fair person would accept, or is blatantly one-sided and rankly unfair. Unconscionability is a doctrine by which courts may deny enforcement of a contract because of procedural abuses arising out of the contract formation, or because of substantive abuses relating to the terms of the contract. To determine a settlement agreement is unconscionable there must be some showing of both procedural and substantive unconscionability and courts must balance the various factors, viewed in totality, to make its determination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Vann v. Vann · Praus v. Praus“A district court's duty to make an equitable distribution of marital property under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24 includes the authority to decide whether a settlement agreement was executed as a result of mistake, duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence under N.D.C.C. § 9-09-02(1).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Vann v. Vann“Substantive unconscionability focuses on the terms of the agreement and their harshness or whether the terms are one-sided.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Vann v. Vann
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.