Carlson v. General Motors Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
883 F.2d 287 · 1989
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 16 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably General Motors Corporation Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation 94-1064 94-1194 94-1195 94-1198 94-1202 94-1203 94-1207 94-1208 94-1219 (1995), In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (2002)
14 federal appellate · 16 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 12 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 2301 (Magnuson-Moss Warranty—Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2308 · 15 U.S.C. § 2310 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. General Electric Company · Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. · Walsh v. Ford Motor Co. · In Re the Cadillac V8-6-4 Class Action
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`Substantive unconscionability involves those one-sided terms of a contract from which a party seeks relief (for instance, "I have the right to cut off one of your child's fingers for each day you are in default"), while procedural unconscionability deals with the process of making a contract "bargaining naughtiness" (for instance, "Just sign here; the small print on the back is only our standard form"). Each of these branches of unconscionability has common-law cousins; procedural unconscionability looks much like fraud or duress in contract formation, and substantive unconscionability reminds us of contracts or clauses contrary to public policy or illegal.'"”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contact, ... or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. (2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘unconscionability should but rarely be determined on the bare bones pleadings.”
3 later decisions 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.