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.
9 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 |
|---|---|---|
Muhammad v. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, Delawaregreen2 sentences2025The Rudbart factors focus on the procedural and substantive aspects of a contract of adhesion in order to determine whether the contract is so oppressive, Martindale, 173 N.J. at 90 , or inconsistent with the vindication of public policy, Muhammad, 189 N.J. at 25 , that it would be unconscionable to permit its enforcement. 2025The Rudbart factors focus on the procedural and substantive aspects of a contract of adhesion in order to determine whether the contract is so oppressive, Martindale, 173 N.J. at 90 , or inconsistent with the vindication of public policy, Muhammad, 189 N.J. at 25 , that it would be unconscionable to permit its enforcement. | 4 | 6 |
Delta Funding Corp. v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2025See Sitogum Holdings, Inc. v. Ropes, 352 N.J. Super. 555, 565-66 (Ch. Div. 2002); see also Muhammad, 189 N.J. at 14 n.2 (noting appropriateness of sliding-scale analysis for contracts of adhesion). [ 189 N.J. 28, 39-40 (2006) (internal citations omitted).] The first three Rudbart factors speak to procedural unconscionability, and the last factor speaks to substantive unconscionability. 2025See Sitogum Holdings, Inc. v. Ropes, 352 N.J. Super. 555, 565-66 (Ch. Div. 2002); see also Muhammad, 189 N.J. at 14 n.2 (noting appropriateness of sliding-scale analysis for contracts of adhesion). [ 189 N.J. 28, 39-40 (2006).] The first three Rudbart factors speak to procedural unconscionability, and the last factor speaks to substantive unconscionability. | 3 | 3 |
Sitogum Holdings, Inc. v. Ropesgreen2 sentences2025See Sitogum Holdings, Inc. v. Ropes, 352 N.J. Super. 555, 565-66 (Ch. Div. 2002); see also Muhammad, 189 N.J. at 14 n.2 (noting appropriateness of sliding-scale analysis for contracts of adhesion). [ 189 N.J. 28, 39-40 (2006) (internal citations omitted).] The first three Rudbart factors speak to procedural unconscionability, and the last factor speaks to substantive unconscionability. 2025See Sitogum Holdings, Inc. v. Ropes, 352 N.J. Super. 555, 565-66 (Ch. Div. 2002); see also Muhammad, 189 N.J. at 14 n.2 (noting appropriateness of sliding-scale analysis for contracts of adhesion). [ 189 N.J. 28, 39-40 (2006).] The first three Rudbart factors speak to procedural unconscionability, and the last factor speaks to substantive unconscionability. | 2 | 2 |
Sergio Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture(074603)green2 sentences2025Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Co., Inc., 225 N.J. 343, 367 (2016). 2025Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Co., Inc., 225 N.J. 343, 367 (2016). | 2 | 2 |
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.green2 sentences2006In Gilmer, supra, the United States Supreme Court stated that arbitration is allowed in actions authorized by federal statutes “[s]o long as the prospective litigant effectively may vindicate [his or her] statutory cause of action in the arbitral forum.” 500 U.S. at 28 , 111 S.Ct. at 1653 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 38 (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 637 , 105 S.Ct. 3346, 3359 , 87 L.Ed.2d 444, 462 (1985)). 2006In Gilmer, supra, the United States Supreme Court stated that arbitration is allowed in actions authorized by federal statutes “[s]o long as the prospective litigant effectively may vindicate [his or her] statutory cause of action in the arbitral forum.” 500 U.S. at 28 , 111 S.Ct. at 1653 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 38 (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 637 , 105 S.Ct. 3346, 3359 , 87 L.Ed.2d 444, 462 (1985)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025The Rudbart factors focus on the procedural and substantive aspects of a contract of adhesion in order to determine whether the contract is so oppressive, Martindale, 173 N.J. at 90 , or inconsistent with the vindication of public policy, Muhammad, 189 N.J. at 25 , that it would be unconscionable to permit its enforcement. 2025The Rudbart factors focus on the procedural and substantive aspects of a contract of adhesion in order to determine whether the contract is so oppressive, Martindale, 173 N.J. at 90 , or inconsistent with the vindication of public policy, Muhammad, 189 N.J. at 25 , that it would be unconscionable to permit its enforcement. | 5 | 2006–2025 |
Rudbart v. North Jersey District Water Supply Commission
green
2 sentences2026In her decision, she found the testimony of both plaintiff and Gerahty credible, made detailed factual findings based on the testimony, applied the Rudbart factors to her findings, and concluded "the agreement [was] unenforceable as unconscionable." As to the first factor, "the subject matter of the contract," Rudbart, 127 N.J. at 356 , the judge found while a contract for burial services is "a difficult contract to enter into even under the best of circumstances," the circumstances here "made entry into the contract even more difficult." As to the second factor, "the parties' relative bargain 2026In her decision, she found the testimony of both plaintiff and Gerahty credible, made detailed factual findings based on the testimony, applied the Rudbart factors to her findings, and concluded "the agreement [was] unenforceable as unconscionable." As to the first factor, "the subject matter of the contract," Rudbart, 127 N.J. at 356 , the judge found while a contract for burial services is "a difficult contract to enter into even under the best of circumstances," the circumstances here "made entry into the contract even more difficult." As to the second factor, "the parties' relative bargain | 4 | 2006–2026 |
County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware v. Muhammad
green
2 sentences2011Bank of Rehoboth Beach, 189 N.J. 1, 18 , 912 A. 2d 88 (2006) ("The first three factors of the Rudbart analysis require only brief attention."), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1338 , 127 S.Ct. 2032 , 167 L.Ed. 2d 763 (2007). 2011Bank of Rehoboth Beach, 189 N.J. 1, 18 , 912 A. 2d 88 (2006) ("The first three factors of the Rudbart analysis require only brief attention."), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1338 , 127 S.Ct. 2032 , 167 L.Ed. 2d 763 (2007). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.
green
2 sentences2006In Gilmer, supra, the United States Supreme Court stated that arbitration is allowed in actions authorized by federal statutes “[s]o long as the prospective litigant effectively may vindicate [his or her] statutory cause of action in the arbitral forum.” 500 U.S. at 28 , 111 S.Ct. at 1653 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 38 (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 637 , 105 S.Ct. 3346, 3359 , 87 L.Ed.2d 444, 462 (1985)). 2006In Gilmer, supra, the United States Supreme Court stated that arbitration is allowed in actions authorized by federal statutes “[s]o long as the prospective litigant effectively may vindicate [his or her] statutory cause of action in the arbitral forum.” 500 U.S. at 28 , 111 S.Ct. at 1653 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 38 (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 637 , 105 S.Ct. 3346, 3359 , 87 L.Ed.2d 444, 462 (1985)). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Chunn v. Texas
green
2 sentences2006Water Supply Comm'n, 127 N.J. 344, 356 , 605 A. 2d 681 , cert. denied, 506 U.S. 871 , 113 S.Ct. 203 , 121 L.Ed. 2d 145 (1992). [I]n determining whether to enforce the terms of a contract of adhesion, [we] look[] not only to the take-it-or-leave-it nature or the standardized form of the document but also to [(1)] the subject matter of the contract, [(2)] the parties' relative bargaining positions, [(3)] the degree of economic compulsion motivating the "adhering" party, and [(4)] the public interests affected by the contract. [ Ibid. ] The Rudbart factors focus on the procedural and substantive 2006Water Supply Comm'n, 127 N.J. 344, 356 , 605 A. 2d 681 , cert. denied, 506 U.S. 871 , 113 S.Ct. 203 , 121 L.Ed. 2d 145 (1992). [I]n determining whether to enforce the terms of a contract of adhesion, [we] look[] not only to the take-it-or-leave-it nature or the standardized form of the document but also to [(1)] the subject matter of the contract, [(2)] the parties' relative bargaining positions, [(3)] the degree of economic compulsion motivating the "adhering" party, and [(4)] the public interests affected by the contract. [ Ibid. ] The Rudbart factors focus on the procedural and substantive | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Rowan Cos. v. Parker
neutral
2 sentences2006Water Supply Comm'n, 127 N.J. 344, 356 , 605 A. 2d 681 , cert. denied, 506 U.S. 871 , 113 S.Ct. 203 , 121 L.Ed. 2d 145 (1992). [I]n determining whether to enforce the terms of a contract of adhesion, [we] look[] not only to the take-it-or-leave-it nature or the standardized form of the document but also to [(1)] the subject matter of the contract, [(2)] the parties' relative bargaining positions, [(3)] the degree of economic compulsion motivating the "adhering" party, and [(4)] the public interests affected by the contract. [ Ibid. ] The Rudbart factors focus on the procedural and substantive 2006Water Supply Comm'n, 127 N.J. 344, 356 , 605 A. 2d 681 , cert. denied, 506 U.S. 871 , 113 S.Ct. 203 , 121 L.Ed. 2d 145 (1992). [I]n determining whether to enforce the terms of a contract of adhesion, [we] look[] not only to the take-it-or-leave-it nature or the standardized form of the document but also to [(1)] the subject matter of the contract, [(2)] the parties' relative bargaining positions, [(3)] the degree of economic compulsion motivating the "adhering" party, and [(4)] the public interests affected by the contract. [ Ibid. ] The Rudbart factors focus on the procedural and substantive | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.