Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “[N]o matter how broad the arbitration clause, it may be necessary to file an action in court to enforce an arbitration agreement, or to obtain a judgment enforcing an arbitration award, and the parties may need to invoke the jurisdiction of a court to obtain other remedies. It is apparent that the venue provision here was intended for these purposes, and to identify the venue for any other claims that were not covered by the arbitration agreement.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Mumin v. Uber Technologies, Inc. · Rimel v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

2. “language 'delegating to the arbitrators the authority to determine the validity or application of any of the provisions of the arbitration clause[ ] constitutes an agreement to arbitrate threshold issues concerning the arbitration agreement.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Crooks v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

3. “Unconscionability 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.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Esquer v. Educ. Mgmt. Corp.