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 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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 |
|---|---|---|
Baker v. CITY SEATTLEgreen2 sentences2009Id. at 518 (citing Yakima County, 122 Wn.2d at 391 ); see also Baker v. City of Seattle, 79 Wn.2d 198, 201-02 , 484 P.2d 405 (1971) (recognizing that the UCC can be applied to common law contract analysis by analogy, especially when evaluating unconscionability). 2009Id. at 518 (citing Yakima County, 122 Wn.2d at 391 ); see also Baker v. City of Seattle, 79 Wn.2d 198, 201-02 , 484 P.2d 405 (1971) (recognizing that the UCC can be applied to common law contract analysis by analogy, especially when evaluating unconscionability). | 3 | 3 |
CHRISTIANSEN BROTHERS v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., Christiansen Bros. v. State, 90 Wn.2d 872, 877-78 , 586 P.2d 840 (1978) (applying unconscionability principles to construction contract but refusing to extend UCC remedial provisions, as “[t]his is a task for the legislative branch”). 2009See, e.g., Christiansen Bros. v. State, 90 Wn.2d 872, 877-78 , 586 P.2d 840 (1978) (applying unconscionability principles to construction contract but refusing to extend UCC remedial provisions, as “[t]his is a task for the legislative branch”). | 2 | 2 |
MICHAEL GRASSMUECK, INC. v. McShanegreen2 sentences2010App. 870, 877, 885-86 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (holding that to the extent a claim of a contract’s unconscionability does not challenge the arbitration clause in particular, a request for declaratory relief is an issue for the arbitrator), review granted, 169 Wn.2d 1021 (2010). ¶31 GreenCo also contends Verbeek acted inconsistently with an intent to arbitrate by seeking a judgment against GreenCo’s surety bond because the bond company is not a party to the arbitration agreement. 2010See Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870, 877, 885-86 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (holding that to the extent a claim of a contract's unconscionability does not challenge the arbitration clause in particular, a request for declaratory relief is an issue for the arbitrator), review granted, 169 Wash.2d 1021 , 238 P.3d 504 (2010). ¶ 31 GreenCo also contends Verbeek acted inconsistently with an intent to arbitrate by seeking a judgment against GreenCo's surety bond because the bond company is not a party to the arbitration agreement. | 1 | 2 |
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp.green2 sentences2010App. 870, 877, 885-86 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (holding that to the extent a claim of a contract’s unconscionability does not challenge the arbitration clause in particular, a request for declaratory relief is an issue for the arbitrator), review granted, 169 Wn.2d 1021 (2010). ¶31 GreenCo also contends Verbeek acted inconsistently with an intent to arbitrate by seeking a judgment against GreenCo’s surety bond because the bond company is not a party to the arbitration agreement. 2010See Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870, 877, 885-86 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (holding that to the extent a claim of a contract's unconscionability does not challenge the arbitration clause in particular, a request for declaratory relief is an issue for the arbitrator), review granted, 169 Wash.2d 1021 , 238 P.3d 504 (2010). ¶ 31 GreenCo also contends Verbeek acted inconsistently with an intent to arbitrate by seeking a judgment against GreenCo's surety bond because the bond company is not a party to the arbitration agreement. | 1 | 2 |
McKee v. AT&T Corp.green1 sentence2023See, e.g., McKee, 164 Wn.2d at 396 (holding “[a]greements may be either substantively or procedurally unconscionable” and declining to review the alleged procedural unconscionability of the agreement); Adler v. Fred Lind Manor, 153 Wn.2d 331, 345 , 103 P.3d 773 (2004) (“[O]ur decisions . . . analyze procedural and substantive unconscionability separately without suggesting that courts must find both to render a contract void.”); see also Luna v. Household Fin. | 1 | 1 |
Flight Options, LLC v. STATE, DEPT., OF REVENUEgreen1 sentence2010See Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870, 877, 885-86 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (holding that to the extent a claim of a contract's unconscionability does not challenge the arbitration clause in particular, a request for declaratory relief is an issue for the arbitrator), review granted, 169 Wash.2d 1021 , 238 P.3d 504 (2010). ¶ 31 GreenCo also contends Verbeek acted inconsistently with an intent to arbitrate by seeking a judgment against GreenCo's surety bond because the bond company is not a party to the arbitration agreement. | 1 | 1 |
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp.green1 sentence2010See Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870, 877, 885-86 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (holding that to the extent a claim of a contract's unconscionability does not challenge the arbitration clause in particular, a request for declaratory relief is an issue for the arbitrator), review granted, 169 Wash.2d 1021 , 238 P.3d 504 (2010). ¶ 31 GreenCo also contends Verbeek acted inconsistently with an intent to arbitrate by seeking a judgment against GreenCo's surety bond because the bond company is not a party to the arbitration agreement. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. M.L.G. Corp.green1 sentence1990Davis, 712 P.2d at 991. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Yakima County (West Valley) Fire Protection District No. 12 v. City of Yakima
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 518 (citing Yakima County, 122 Wn.2d at 391 ); see also Baker v. City of Seattle, 79 Wn.2d 198, 201-02 , 484 P.2d 405 (1971) (recognizing that the UCC can be applied to common law contract analysis by analogy, especially when evaluating unconscionability). 2009Id. at 518, 210 P.3d 318 (citing Yakima County, 122 Wash.2d at 391 , 858 P.2d 245 ); see also Baker v. City of Seattle, 79 Wash.2d 198, 201-02 , 484 P.2d 405 (1971) (recognizing that the UCC can be applied to common law contract analysis by analogy, especially when evaluating unconscionability). | 4 | 1994–2009 |
Jeffery v. Weintraub
green
2 sentences1998Jeffery v. Weintraub, 32 Wash.App. 536, 544 , 648 P.2d 914 (1982). 1998Jeffery v. Weintraub, 32 Wn. | 3 | 1994–1998 |
Southcenter View Condominium Owners' Ass'n v. Condominium Builders, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009The court cited its holding in Southcenter View Condominium Owners' Association v. Condominium Builders, Inc., 47 Wash.App. 767, 771 , 736 P.2d 1075 (1986), stating "the UCC does not apply to contracts for the sale of real estate and declin[ing] to apply its provisions by analogy." Miller, 139 Wash.App. 1018 , 2007 WL 1733170 , at *3. ¶ 13 However, as the court noted, we have held the unconscionability doctrine is applicable beyond the UCC context. 2009App. 767, 771 , 736 P.2d 1075 (1986), stating, “[T]he UCC does not apply to contracts for the sale of real estate and declining] to apply its provisions by analogy.” Miller, 2007 WL 1733170 , at *3, 2007 Wash. App. LEXIS 1664 , at *8. ¶13 However, as the court noted, we have held the unconscionability doctrine is applicable beyond the UCC context. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Torgerson v. One Lincoln Tower, LLC
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 518, 210 P.3d 318 (citing Yakima County, 122 Wash.2d at 391 , 858 P.2d 245 ); see also Baker v. City of Seattle, 79 Wash.2d 198, 201-02 , 484 P.2d 405 (1971) (recognizing that the UCC can be applied to common law contract analysis by analogy, especially when evaluating unconscionability). 2009Id. at 518, 210 P.3d 318 (citing Yakima County, 122 Wash.2d at 391 , 858 P.2d 245 ); see also Baker v. City of Seattle, 79 Wash.2d 198, 201-02 , 484 P.2d 405 (1971) (recognizing that the UCC can be applied to common law contract analysis by analogy, especially when evaluating unconscionability). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Camacho v. Holiday Homes, Inc.
green
2 sentences2002Camacho, 167 F.Supp.2d at 896 n. 2. 2002Camacho, 167 F. Supp. 2d at 896 n.2. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Adler v. Fred Lind Manor
green
1 sentence2023See, e.g., McKee, 164 Wn.2d at 396 (holding “[a]greements may be either substantively or procedurally unconscionable” and declining to review the alleged procedural unconscionability of the agreement); Adler v. Fred Lind Manor, 153 Wn.2d 331, 345 , 103 P.3d 773 (2004) (“[O]ur decisions . . . analyze procedural and substantive unconscionability separately without suggesting that courts must find both to render a contract void.”); see also Luna v. Household Fin. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Adler v. Fred Lind Manor
green
1 sentence2023See, e.g., McKee, 164 Wn.2d at 396 (holding “[a]greements may be either substantively or procedurally unconscionable” and declining to review the alleged procedural unconscionability of the agreement); Adler v. Fred Lind Manor, 153 Wn.2d 331, 345 , 103 P.3d 773 (2004) (“[O]ur decisions . . . analyze procedural and substantive unconscionability separately without suggesting that courts must find both to render a contract void.”); see also Luna v. Household Fin. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Nelson v. McGoldrick
green
2 sentences2020Nelson v. McGoldrick, 127 Wn.2d 124, 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 (1995). 2020Nelson v. McGoldrick, 127 Wn.2d 124, 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 (1995). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Torgerson v. One Lincoln Tower, LLC
green
1 sentence2009Id. at 518 (citing Yakima County, 122 Wn.2d at 391 ); see also Baker v. City of Seattle, 79 Wn.2d 198, 201-02 , 484 P.2d 405 (1971) (recognizing that the UCC can be applied to common law contract analysis by analogy, especially when evaluating unconscionability). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Olmsted v. Mulder
green
2 sentences2009Olmsted, 72 Wash.App. at 177-78 , 863 P.2d 1355 , held that "[a]lthough the Uniform Commercial Code is not directly applicable to the sale of real estate, .... [w]e believe the reasoning of the U.C.C. on the disclaimer of warranties is persuasive and can be applied by analogy in this case." But just because courts have applied the UCC by analogy on definitional matters such as the meaning of a disclaimer, and this court has applied the unconscionability doctrine beyond the UCC context, does not mean we need to import UCC remedial provisions into real estate contracts. 2009Olmsted, 72 Wash.App. at 177-78 , 863 P.2d 1355 , held that "[a]lthough the Uniform Commercial Code is not directly applicable to the sale of real estate, .... [w]e believe the reasoning of the U.C.C. on the disclaimer of warranties is persuasive and can be applied by analogy in this case." But just because courts have applied the UCC by analogy on definitional matters such as the meaning of a disclaimer, and this court has applied the unconscionability doctrine beyond the UCC context, does not mean we need to import UCC remedial provisions into real estate contracts. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Vernon
green
1 sentence2009The court cited its holding in Southcenter View Condominium Owners' Association v. Condominium Builders, Inc., 47 Wash.App. 767, 771 , 736 P.2d 1075 (1986), stating "the UCC does not apply to contracts for the sale of real estate and declin[ing] to apply its provisions by analogy." Miller, 139 Wash.App. 1018 , 2007 WL 1733170 , at *3. ¶ 13 However, as the court noted, we have held the unconscionability doctrine is applicable beyond the UCC context. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.