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.
14 West Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by West Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dan Ryan Builders, Inc. v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2020Pt. 9, Dan Ryan Builders, Inc. v. Nelson, 230 W.Va. 281 , 737 S.E.2d 550 (2012) (“A court in its equity powers is charged with the discretion to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a contract provision is so harsh and overly unfair that it should not be enforced under the doctrine of unconscionability.”) As a contract of adhesion, 2 this Arbitration Agreement is subject to “greater scrutiny than a contract with bargained-for terms to determine if it imposes terms that are oppressive, unconscionable or beyond the reasonable expectations of an ordinary person.” See Syl. 2020Pt. 9, Dan Ryan Builders, Inc. v. Nelson, 230 W.Va. 281 , 737 S.E.2d 550 (2012) (“A court in its equity powers is charged with the discretion to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a contract provision is so harsh and overly unfair that it should not be enforced under the doctrine of unconscionability.”) As a contract of adhesion, 2 this Arbitration Agreement is subject to “greater scrutiny than a contract with bargained-for terms to determine if it imposes terms that are oppressive, unconscionable or beyond the reasonable expectations of an ordinary person.” See Syl. | 3 | 4 |
Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.green2 sentences2021Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 6 P.3d 669, 690 (Cal. 2000) (“The prevailing view is that [procedural and substantive unconscionability] must both be present in order for a court to exercise its discretion to refuse to enforce a contract or clause under the doctrine of unconscionability. . . . 2021Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 6 P.3d 669, 690 (Cal. 2000) (“The prevailing view is that [procedural and substantive unconscionability] must both be present in order for a court to exercise its discretion to refuse to enforce a contract or clause under the doctrine of unconscionability. . . . | 1 | 1 |
Brown ex rel. Brown v. Genesis Healthcare Corp.green2 sentences2019Va. 281, 289 , 737 S.E.2d 550, 558 (2012). 66 229 W.Va. 382, 393 , 729 S.E.2d 217, 228 (2012) (internal citations omitted). 2019Va. 281, 289 , 737 S.E.2d 550, 558 (2012). 66 229 W.Va. 382, 393 , 729 S.E.2d 217, 228 (2012) (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wolowitzgreen2 sentences2017By focusing on the manner in which a contract is entered into and the status of the parties, the doctrine is designed to insure freedom of contract and not to negate it.25 As another court said, the doctrine of unconscionability ensures that contracts are “the subject of calm and deliberate adjustment[.]”26 24 State v. Wolowitz, 468 N.Y.S.2d 131, 145 (1983). 25 Wolowitz, 468 N.Y.S.2d 131, 145 (1983) (citations omitted). 26 Hydraulic Power Co. of Niagara Falls v. Pettebone-Cataract Paper Co., 191 N.Y.S. 12, 18 (App. Div. 1921). 15 Applying New York law, we now examine the circuit court’s findin 2017By focusing on the manner in which a contract is entered into and the status of the parties, the doctrine is designed to insure freedom of contract and not to negate it.25 As another court said, the doctrine of unconscionability ensures that contracts are “the subject of calm and deliberate adjustment[.]”26 24 State v. Wolowitz, 468 N.Y.S.2d 131, 145 (1983). 25 Wolowitz, 468 N.Y.S.2d 131, 145 (1983) (citations omitted). 26 Hydraulic Power Co. of Niagara Falls v. Pettebone-Cataract Paper Co., 191 N.Y.S. 12, 18 (App. Div. 1921). 15 Applying New York law, we now examine the circuit court’s findin | 1 | 1 |
Hydraulic Power Co. v. Pettebone-Cataract Paper Co.green1 sentence2017By focusing on the manner in which a contract is entered into and the status of the parties, the doctrine is designed to insure freedom of contract and not to negate it.25 As another court said, the doctrine of unconscionability ensures that contracts are “the subject of calm and deliberate adjustment[.]”26 24 State v. Wolowitz, 468 N.Y.S.2d 131, 145 (1983). 25 Wolowitz, 468 N.Y.S.2d 131, 145 (1983) (citations omitted). 26 Hydraulic Power Co. of Niagara Falls v. Pettebone-Cataract Paper Co., 191 N.Y.S. 12, 18 (App. Div. 1921). 15 Applying New York law, we now examine the circuit court’s findin | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. AT & T Mobility, LLC v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2016Pt. 9, Dan Ryan Builders, Inc. v. Nelson, 230 W.Va. 281 , 737 S.E.2d 550 (2012) (“A court in its equity powers is charged with the discretion to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a contract provision is so harsh and overly unfair that it should not be enforced under the doctrine of unconscionability.”); AT&T Mobility, 226 W.Va. at 578 , 703 S.E.2d at 549 (“[E]very case in which the issue of an unconscionable adhesion contract is raised must be 11 examined on the basis of the language of that particular contract in conjunction with the specific facts surrounding the dispute.”). 2016Pt. 9, Dan Ryan Builders, Inc. v. Nelson, 230 W.Va. 281 , 737 S.E.2d 550 (2012) (“A court in its equity powers is charged with the discretion to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a contract provision is so harsh and overly unfair that it should not be enforced under the doctrine of unconscionability.”); AT&T Mobility, 226 W.Va. at 578 , 703 S.E.2d at 549 (“[E]very case in which the issue of an unconscionable adhesion contract is raised must be 11 examined on the basis of the language of that particular contract in conjunction with the specific facts surrounding the dispute.”). | 1 | 1 |
Mercuro v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2012For instance, in Brown II, we stated that: Substantive unconscionability may manifest itself in the form of “an agreement requiring arbitration only for the claims of the weaker party but a choice of forums for the claims of the stronger party.” “Some courts suggest that mutuality of obligation is the locus around which sub stantive uneonscionability analysis revolves.” “Agreements to arbitrate must contain at least ‘a modicum of bilaterality’ to avoid uneonscionability.” Brown II, 229 W.Va. at 393, 729 S.E.2d at 228 (quoting Mercuro v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.4th 167, 176 , 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 2012For instance, in Brown II, we stated that: Substantive unconscionability may manifest itself in the form of “an agreement requiring arbitration only for the claims of the weaker party but a choice of forums for the claims of the stronger party.” “Some courts suggest that mutuality of obligation is the locus around which sub stantive uneonscionability analysis revolves.” “Agreements to arbitrate must contain at least ‘a modicum of bilaterality’ to avoid uneonscionability.” Brown II, 229 W.Va. at 393, 729 S.E.2d at 228 (quoting Mercuro v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.4th 167, 176 , 116 Cal.Rptr.2d | 1 | 1 |
Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc.green2 sentences2012For instance, in Brown II, we stated that: Substantive unconscionability may manifest itself in the form of “an agreement requiring arbitration only for the claims of the weaker party but a choice of forums for the claims of the stronger party.” “Some courts suggest that mutuality of obligation is the locus around which sub stantive uneonscionability analysis revolves.” “Agreements to arbitrate must contain at least ‘a modicum of bilaterality’ to avoid uneonscionability.” Brown II, 229 W.Va. at 393, 729 S.E.2d at 228 (quoting Mercuro v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.4th 167, 176 , 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 2012For instance, in Brown II, we stated that: Substantive unconscionability may manifest itself in the form of “an agreement requiring arbitration only for the claims of the weaker party but a choice of forums for the claims of the stronger party.” “Some courts suggest that mutuality of obligation is the locus around which sub stantive uneonscionability analysis revolves.” “Agreements to arbitrate must contain at least ‘a modicum of bilaterality’ to avoid uneonscionability.” Brown II, 229 W.Va. at 393, 729 S.E.2d at 228 (quoting Mercuro v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.4th 167, 176 , 116 Cal.Rptr.2d | 1 | 1 |
Troy Mining Corp. v. Itmann Coal Co.green2 sentences2010In discussing the elements of an unconscionability claim in Saylor, we identified “‘gross inadequacy in bargaining power’ combine[d] with ‘terms unreasonably favorable to the stronger party’ ” as the foundation for such a claim. 216 W.Va. at 774 , 613 S.E.2d at 922 (quoting Troy Mining Corp. v. Itmann Coal Co., 176 W.Va. 599, 604 , 346 S.E.2d 749, 753 (1986)). 2010In discussing the elements of an unconscionability claim in Saylor, we identified “‘gross inadequacy in bargaining power’ combine[d] with ‘terms unreasonably favorable to the stronger party’ ” as the foundation for such a claim. 216 W.Va. at 774 , 613 S.E.2d at 922 (quoting Troy Mining Corp. v. Itmann Coal Co., 176 W.Va. 599, 604 , 346 S.E.2d 749, 753 (1986)). | 1 | 1 |
Mallory v. Mortgage America, Inc.green2 sentences2005See Mallory v. Mortgage America, Inc., 67 F.Supp.2d 601, 612 (S.D.W.Va.1999) (stating that "[u]nconscionability claims should but rarely be determined based on the pleadings alone with no opportunity for the parties to present relevant evidence of the circumstances surrounding the consummation of the contractual relationship"). 2005Only when there are no factual disputes in existence can an unconscionability claim under West Virginia Code § 46A-2-121 be determined as a question of law based on the undisputed factual circumstances and resolved through summary judgment. • See Mallory v. Mortgage America, Inc., 67 F.Supp.2d 601, 612 (S.D.W.Va.1999) (stating that “[ujnconscionability claims should but rarely be determined based on the pleadings alone with no opportunity for the parties to present relevant evidence of the circumstances surrounding the consummation of the contractual relationship”). | 1 | 1 |
McGinnis v. Caytongreen2 sentences1998This Court has held that “[u]nconscionability means overall and gross imbalance, one-sidedness or lop-sidedness that justifies a court’s refusal to enforce a contract as written.” McGinnis v. Cayton, 173 W.Va. 102, 113 , 312 S.E.2d 765, 776 (1984). 1998This Court has held that “[u]nconscionability means overall and gross imbalance, one-sidedness or lop-sidedness that justifies a court’s refusal to enforce a contract as written.” McGinnis v. Cayton, 173 W.Va. 102, 113 , 312 S.E.2d 765, 776 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown Ex Rel. Brown v. Genesis Healthcare
green
2 sentences2021Va. 646 , 724 S.E.2d 250 (2011), and it substantially altered the unconscionability analysis and injected the new point of law at issue in this case. 2021Brown v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., 228 W. | 3 | 2012–2021 |
State ex rel. Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Tucker
green
2 sentences2023Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Tucker, 229 W. 2021Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Tucker, 229 W. | 2 | 2021–2023 |
Wellington Power Corp. v. CNA Surety Corp.
green
1 sentence2025However, “[t]he judicial power to declare a contract void as contravening sound public policy is a very delicate and undefined power, and should be exercised only in cases free from doubt.” Wellington Power Corp., 217 W. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
SER Ocwen Loan Servicing v. Hon. Carrie Webster, Judge
green
2 sentences2015Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Webster, 232 W.Va. 341 , 752 S.E.2d 372 (2013), we acknowledged that courts have found a variety of acceptable exclusions in arbitration agreements that do not render the agreements unconscionable, such as when those exclusions concern mechanisms, such as security interests. 2015Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Webster, 232 W.Va. 341 , 752 S.E.2d 372 (2013), we acknowledged that courts have found a variety of acceptable exclusions in arbitration agreements that do not render the agreements unconscionable, such as when those exclusions concern mechanisms, such as security interests. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State Ex Rel. Dunlap v. Berger
green
2 sentences2012Dunlap v. Berger, 211 W.Va. 549 , 567 S.E.2d 265 , we held that in an unconscionability analysis, a trial court could consider high costs that an arbitration agreement imposes and whether it might deter a litigant from pursuing a claim: Provisions in a contract of adhesion that if applied would impose unreasonably burdensome costs upon or would have a substantial deterrent effect upon a person seeking to enforce and vindicate rights and protections or to obtain statutory or common-law relief and remedies that are afforded by or arise under state law that exists for the benefit and protection o 2012Dunlap v. Berger, 211 W.Va. 549 , 567 S.E.2d 265 , we held that in an unconscionability analysis, a trial court could consider high costs that an arbitration agreement imposes and whether it might deter a litigant from pursuing a claim: Provisions in a contract of adhesion that if applied would impose unreasonably burdensome costs upon or would have a substantial deterrent effect upon a person seeking to enforce and vindicate rights and protections or to obtain statutory or common-law relief and remedies that are afforded by or arise under state law that exists for the benefit and protection o | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State Ex Rel. Saylor v. Wilkes
green
2 sentences2010In discussing the elements of an unconscionability claim in Saylor, we identified “‘gross inadequacy in bargaining power’ combine[d] with ‘terms unreasonably favorable to the stronger party’ ” as the foundation for such a claim. 216 W.Va. at 774 , 613 S.E.2d at 922 (quoting Troy Mining Corp. v. Itmann Coal Co., 176 W.Va. 599, 604 , 346 S.E.2d 749, 753 (1986)). 2010In discussing the elements of an unconscionability claim in Saylor, we identified “‘gross inadequacy in bargaining power’ combine[d] with ‘terms unreasonably favorable to the stronger party’ ” as the foundation for such a claim. 216 W.Va. at 774 , 613 S.E.2d at 922 (quoting Troy Mining Corp. v. Itmann Coal Co., 176 W.Va. 599, 604 , 346 S.E.2d 749, 753 (1986)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Art's Flower Shop, Inc. v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.
green
2 sentences2010In Saylor, we recognized the continuing validity of the four-part test that we first adopted in syllabus point four of Art’s Flower Shop, Inc. v. Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co., 186 W.Va. 613 , 413 S.E.2d 670 (1991), for proving unconscionability: “ ‘A determination of unconscionability must focus on the relative positions of the parties, the adequacy of the bargaining position, the meaningful alternatives available to the plaintiff, and the existence of unfair terms in the contract.’ ” 216 W.Va. at 774 , 613 S.E.2d at 922 . 2010In Saylor, we recognized the continuing validity of the four-part test that we first adopted in syllabus point four of Art’s Flower Shop, Inc. v. Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co., 186 W.Va. 613 , 413 S.E.2d 670 (1991), for proving unconscionability: “ ‘A determination of unconscionability must focus on the relative positions of the parties, the adequacy of the bargaining position, the meaningful alternatives available to the plaintiff, and the existence of unfair terms in the contract.’ ” 216 W.Va. at 774 , 613 S.E.2d at 922 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.