12 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 |
|---|---|---|
Seekings v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc.green2 sentences2003UNCONSCIONABILITY In Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc. , 184 Ariz. 82 , 907 P.2d 51 (Ariz. 1995), the Arizona Supreme Court described the unconscionability principle as " 'one of the prevention of oppression and unfair surprise.' " Maxwell , 184 Ariz. at 88 , 907 P.2d at 57 , quoting Seekings v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc. , 130 Ariz. 596, 602 , 638 P.2d 210, 216 (Ariz. 1981). 2003UNCONSCIONABILITY In Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc., 184 Ariz. 82 , 907 P.2d 51 (1995), the Arizona Supreme Court described the unconscionability principle as “ ‘one of the prevention of oppression and unfair surprise.’ ” Maxwell, 184 Ariz. at 88 , 907 P.2d at 57 , quoting Seekings v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., 130 Ariz. 596, 602 , 638 E2d 210, 216 (1981). | 1 | 2 |
Brewer v. Missouri Title Loansgreen1 sentence2024Va. 2012) (“under the doctrine of unconscionability, a trial court may decline to enforce a contract clause—such as an arbitration provision—if the obligations or rights created by the clause unfairly lack mutuality” because it requires the weaker party to arbitrate but permits the stronger party to seek relief in court); Brewer v. Missouri Title Loans, 364 S.W.3d 486, 493 (Mo. 2012) (en banc) (finding the evidence supported a determination that an agreement’s arbitration clause was unconscionable when, among other things, the terms of the agreement were entirely one-sided because the consumer | 1 | 1 |
Razor v. Hyundai Motor Americagreen1 sentence2022Regardless, we do not find the clause to be procedurally unconscionable. ¶ 77 “ ‘Procedural unconscionability refers to a situation where a term is so difficult to find, read, or understand that [a party] cannot fairly be said to have been aware he was agreeing to it[.]’ ” Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 223 Ill. 2d 1, 22 (2006) (quoting Razor v. Hyundai Motor America, 222 Ill. 2d 75, 100 (2006)). | 1 | 1 |
Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless, LLCgreen1 sentence2022Regardless, we do not find the clause to be procedurally unconscionable. ¶ 77 “ ‘Procedural unconscionability refers to a situation where a term is so difficult to find, read, or understand that [a party] cannot fairly be said to have been aware he was agreeing to it[.]’ ” Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 223 Ill. 2d 1, 22 (2006) (quoting Razor v. Hyundai Motor America, 222 Ill. 2d 75, 100 (2006)). | 1 | 1 |
DiCosolo v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green1 sentence2019Matheson testified that he was familiar with contracts of adhesion, and agreed “that a contract of adhesion is a contract between two parties where the terms are set by one of the parties and the other has little or no ability to negotiate more favorable terms.” Vector and Cutco argue that plaintiff’s line of questioning was 20 No. 1-18-0420 prejudicial because “it invited the jury to disregard the agreement that McClellan signed as a contract of adhesion and unenforceable.” ¶ 47 “[A] party is not entitled to a new trial unless a trial court’s erroneous evidentiary ruling was substantially pre | 1 | 1 |
Frank's Maintenance & Engineering, Inc. v. C. A. Rorerts Co.green1 sentence2006See Frank’s Maintenance, 86 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Phoenix Insurance v. Rosen
green
2 sentences2025Id. 2025Id. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003UNCONSCIONABILITY In Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc., 184 Ariz. 82 , 907 P.2d 51 (1995), the Arizona Supreme Court described the unconscionability principle as “ ‘one of the prevention of oppression and unfair surprise.’ ” Maxwell, 184 Ariz. at 88 , 907 P.2d at 57 , quoting Seekings v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., 130 Ariz. 596, 602 , 638 E2d 210, 216 (1981). 2003UNCONSCIONABILITY In Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc., 184 Ariz. 82 , 907 P.2d 51 (1995), the Arizona Supreme Court described the unconscionability principle as “ ‘one of the prevention of oppression and unfair surprise.’ ” Maxwell, 184 Ariz. at 88 , 907 P.2d at 57 , quoting Seekings v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., 130 Ariz. 596, 602 , 638 E2d 210, 216 (1981). | 2 | 2003–2003 |
In re Marriage of Prill
green
1 sentence2023In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639, ¶ 39 . ¶ 46 Whether a postnuptial agreement is unconscionable is a question of law that we review de novo (Prill, 2021 IL App (1st) 200516, ¶ 15 ), meaning that we perform the same analysis as the trial court (Kapotas v. Better Government Ass’n, 2015 IL App (1st) 140534, ¶ 26 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In re Marriage of Arjmand
green
1 sentence2023In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639, ¶ 39 . ¶ 46 Whether a postnuptial agreement is unconscionable is a question of law that we review de novo (Prill, 2021 IL App (1st) 200516, ¶ 15 ), meaning that we perform the same analysis as the trial court (Kapotas v. Better Government Ass’n, 2015 IL App (1st) 140534, ¶ 26 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Kapotas v. Better Government Association
green
1 sentence2023In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639, ¶ 39 . ¶ 46 Whether a postnuptial agreement is unconscionable is a question of law that we review de novo (Prill, 2021 IL App (1st) 200516, ¶ 15 ), meaning that we perform the same analysis as the trial court (Kapotas v. Better Government Ass’n, 2015 IL App (1st) 140534, ¶ 26 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
All American Roofing, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance
green
1 sentence2022Finally, even were we to consider O’Quinn for more than its persuasive value, it would actually appear to defeat, rather than support, plaintiffs’ contention that the Alliant arbitration clause was procedurally unconscionable, given that it was also printed in bold text and utilized capitalized letters. ¶ 81 In any case, a “contracting party is not obligated to advise the other party of the contents of the agreement that they are signing.” All-American Roofing, Inc., 404 Ill. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Simmons v. Garces
green
1 sentence2019Matheson testified that he was familiar with contracts of adhesion, and agreed “that a contract of adhesion is a contract between two parties where the terms are set by one of the parties and the other has little or no ability to negotiate more favorable terms.” Vector and Cutco argue that plaintiff’s line of questioning was 20 No. 1-18-0420 prejudicial because “it invited the jury to disregard the agreement that McClellan signed as a contract of adhesion and unenforceable.” ¶ 47 “[A] party is not entitled to a new trial unless a trial court’s erroneous evidentiary ruling was substantially pre | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In Re Marriage of Carlson
green
1 sentence1990App. 3d 924 , 428 N.E.2d 1005 , which relied on the authority of section 502 of the Dissolution Act and the unconscionability standard as defined in the Smith-Hurd Historical and Practice Notes (1980). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Dillman & Associates, Inc. v. Capitol Leasing Co.
green
1 sentence1990App. 3d 335 , 442 N.E.2d 311 , the court followed Heller and upheld an equipment lease against an unconscionability challenge. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Ora Lee Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Company, William Thorne v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Company
green
1 sentence1979Cir. 1965), 350 F.2d 445, 449 .) The unconscionability doctrine has been applied most often to prevent instances of commercial sharp practices by parties possessing superior bargaining power. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.