Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 880 SO2D 1123 - Steele v. Walser

Steele v. Walser’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
3
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 2018

8 state decisions

5020032010decided

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. § 2

Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · National League of Cities v. Usery · Wickard v. Filburn · Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson · Perry v. Thomas

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

  1. “Although Walser argues that the scope of the arbitration agreement in the construction and sales contract is overly broad, she makes no showing that it assigned the threshold issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator, that there was a lack of mutuality of remedies, that it set a limit on the amount the arbitrator could award, or that any other terms of the agreement were `grossly favorable' to the company. Thus, the number and degree of `grossly favorable' terms found in the contract in American General Finance are not present here.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “). A. Terms that are grossly favorable to a party. Turcotte and Woodman argue that, because the arbitration provision provides that disputes shall be resolved by arbitration administered by the National Health Lawyers Association (”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"Walser points out that this Court in American General Finance, Inc. v. Branch, 793 So.2d 738, 740 (Ala.2000), concluded that the language `"all claims, disputes, or controversies of every kind and nature between Borrower(s) and Lender shall be resolved by binding arbitration, including ... those arising out of or relating to the transaction(s) evidenced by this agreement"' satisfied the first prong of the unconscionability test. However, in American General Finance, supra, this Court did not rely solely on the breadth of the arbitration clause; rather, it noted that there were several indicia that the provisions of the contract were `so grossly favorable... as to pass the first prong' of the unconscionability test. 793 So.2d at 750 . The Court identified `the breadth of the clause,' `the provision purporting to invest the arbitrator with the threshold issues of arbitrability,' `the provision exempting the Lenders from the duty to arbitrate and expressly reserving for them the right to try to a jury their claims against Branch up to $10,000,' and the `provision purporting to limit the right of the arbitrator to award an amount "exceed[ing] five times the amount of economic loss."' 793 So.2d at 749 . (Emphasis omitted.) "Although Walser argues that the scope of the arbitration agreement in the construction and sales contract is overly broad, she makes no showing that it assigned the threshold issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator, that there was a lack of mutuality of reme”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.