Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Widok v. Estate of Wolfgreen1 sentence2026“Contract formation requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent between two or more parties with the legal capacity to act.” (Emphasis added.) Widok v. Estate of Wolf, 2020-Ohio-5178, ¶ 52 (8th Dist.), citing Kostelnik v. Helper, 2002-Ohio-2985, ¶ 16 . | 1 | 1 |
English v. Cornwell Quality Tools, Co., Unpublished Decision (12-30-2005)green1 sentence2023Summit No. 22578, 2005-Ohio-6983, ¶ 17 (and distinguishing Porpora as involving a condition precedent to arbitration). {¶46} In any event, Appellant failed to prove this unconscionability claim. | 1 | 1 |
Collins v. Click Camera & Video, Inc.green1 sentence2015Id., quoting Collins v. Click Camera & Video, Inc., 86 Ohio App.3d 826, 834 (1993). {¶31} Regarding any factual finding made by a trial court in an unconscionability analysis, an appellate court is required to accord due deference to the finding. | 1 | 1 |
Lake Ridge Academy v. Carneygreen1 sentence2008Perillo, Corbin On Contracts: Damages, § 58.1, at 396 (rev. ed. 2005). {¶ 13} As noted by the Ohio Supreme Court in Lake Ridge Academy , "[a] penalty is designed to coerce performance by punishing nonperformance; its principal object is not compensation for losses suffered by the nonbreaching party." Lake Ridge Academy , 66 Ohio St. 3d at 381 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
Fotomat Corp. of Fla. v. Chandagreen2 sentences1993See Chanda, supra, 464 So.2d at 628 ; Orlett, supra, 54 Ohio App.3d at 129 , 561 N.E.2d at 1069 . 1993See Chanda, supra, 464 So.2d at 628 ; Orlett, supra, 54 Ohio App.3d at 129 , 561 N.E.2d at 1069 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dorsey v. Contemporary Obstetrics & Gynecology, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010“The unconscionability doctrine consists of two prongs: ‘(1) substantive unconscionability, i.e., unfair and unreasonable contract terms, and (2) procedural unconscionability, i.e., individualized circumstances surrounding parties to a contract such that no voluntary meeting of the minds was possible.’ ” Leach, 2002-Ohio-2237 , 2002 WL 926759 , at ¶ 57, quoting Dorsey, 113 Ohio App.3d at 80 , 680 N.E.2d 240 . 2010“The unconscionability doctrine consists of two prongs: ‘(1) substantive unconscionability, i.e., unfair and unreasonable contract terms, and (2) procedural unconscionability, i.e., individualized circumstances surrounding parties to a contract such that no voluntary meeting of the minds was possible.’ ” Leach, 2002-Ohio-2237 , 2002 WL 926759 , at ¶ 57, quoting Dorsey, 113 Ohio App.3d at 80 , 680 N.E.2d 240 . | 5 | 2001–2010 |
Taylor Building Corp. of America v. Benfield
green
2 sentences2023As the Supreme Court pointed out, “arbitration is favored because it provides the parties thereto Case No. 22 MA 0024 – 15 – with a relatively expeditious and economical means of resolving a dispute.” Hayes, 122 Ohio St.3d 63 at ¶ 15 . “[T]he United States Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement that does not mention costs and fees is not per se unenforceable on the theory that it fails to protect a party from potentially high arbitration costs, because the mere risk that a plaintiff would be forced to pay exorbitant costs is too speculative to justify invalidation of the arbitration 2009Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 117 Ohio St.3d 352 , 2008-Ohio-938 , 884 N.E.2d 12 . | 2 | 2009–2023 |
Patterson v. ITT Consumer Financial Corp.
green
2 sentences1998Corp. (Cal.App.1993), 14 Cal. App.4th 1659 , 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 563 — a case where a California appellate court found a similar agreement to arbitrate disputes between a plaintiff and ITT before the National Arbitration ■ Forum (“NAF”) unconscionable. 1998Corp. (Cal.App.1993), 14 Cal. App.4th 1659 , 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 563 — a case where a California appellate court found a similar agreement to arbitrate disputes between a plaintiff and ITT before the National Arbitration ■ Forum (“NAF”) unconscionable. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Kostelnik v. Helper
green
1 sentence2026“Contract formation requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent between two or more parties with the legal capacity to act.” (Emphasis added.) Widok v. Estate of Wolf, 2020-Ohio-5178, ¶ 52 (8th Dist.), citing Kostelnik v. Helper, 2002-Ohio-2985, ¶ 16 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Hayes v. Oakridge Home
green
1 sentence2023As the Supreme Court pointed out, “arbitration is favored because it provides the parties thereto Case No. 22 MA 0024 – 15 – with a relatively expeditious and economical means of resolving a dispute.” Hayes, 122 Ohio St.3d 63 at ¶ 15 . “[T]he United States Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement that does not mention costs and fees is not per se unenforceable on the theory that it fails to protect a party from potentially high arbitration costs, because the mere risk that a plaintiff would be forced to pay exorbitant costs is too speculative to justify invalidation of the arbitration | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Schwartz v. Alltel Corp., Unpublished Decision (6-29-2006)
green
1 sentence2007Finally, in Schwartz v. Alltel Corp. , Cuyahoga App. No. 86810, 2006-Ohio-3353 , this court applied the same two-part unconscionability test to a noncommercial, i.e., consumer, transaction. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Jeffrey Mining Products, L.P. v. Left Fork Mining Co.
green
1 sentence2005Jeffrey Mining Prod., L.P. v. Left Fork Mining Co. (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 708 , 718 . {¶ 10} "The unconscionability doctrine consists of two prongs: (1) substantive unconscionability, i.e., unfair and unreasonable contract terms, and (2) procedural unconscionability, i.e., individualized circumstances surrounding parties to a contract such that no voluntary meeting of the minds was possible." Dorsey, supra, at 80 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Insurance Co. of North America v. Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of America
green
1 sentence2002Co. of North America v. Automatic Sprinkler Corp. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 91 , 98 . {¶ 13} In Dorsey v. Contemporary Obstetrics Gynecology, Inc. (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 75 , 80 , the Second District Court of Appeals set forth a two prong test for the doctrine of unconscionability: {¶ 14} "(1) substantive unconscionability unfair and unreasonable contract terms; and {¶ 15} "(2) procedural unconscionability individualized circumstances surrounding each of the parties to a contract such that no voluntary meeting of the minds was possible." {¶ 16} "Substantive unconscionability is the product of unf | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Orlett v. Suburban Propane
green
2 sentences1993See Chanda, supra, 464 So.2d at 628 ; Orlett, supra, 54 Ohio App.3d at 129 , 561 N.E.2d at 1069 . 1993See Chanda, supra, 464 So.2d at 628 ; Orlett, supra, 54 Ohio App.3d at 129 , 561 N.E.2d at 1069 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
green
1 sentence1989As to appellant’s first challenge, we agree with the Arizona Supreme Court that “[although a commercial purchaser is not doomed to failure in pressing an unconscionability claim, * * * findings of unconscionability in a commercial setting are rare.” Salt River Project, supra, at 374, 694 P. 2d at 204 (citing White & Summers, Uniform Commercial Code [1972] 385-386). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.