8 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2023 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. D.R. Horton, Inc.green2 sentences2023Horton, Inc., 417 S.C. 42, 48 , 790 S.E.2d 1, 4 (2016) (noting the "Prima Paint doctrine" required that "in conducting an unconscionability inquiry, courts may only consider the provisions of the arbitration agreement itself, and not those of the whole contract"); Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. 2023Horton, Inc., 417 S.C. 42, 48 , 790 S.E.2d 1, 4 (2016) (noting the "Prima Paint doctrine" required that "in conducting an unconscionability inquiry, courts may only consider the provisions of the arbitration agreement itself, and not those of the whole contract"); Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. | 3 | 4 |
Simpson v. MSA of Myrtle Beach, Inc.green2 sentences2022Compare Fanning, 322 S.C. at 403 , 472 S.E.2d at 245 (involving an unconscionability analysis of a contract that did not contain an arbitration provision), with Simpson v. MSA of Myrtle Beach, Inc., 373 S.C. 14 , 24–25, 644 S.E.2d 663, 668 (2007) (involving a similar unconscionability analysis for a contract that contained an arbitration provision). 2022Compare Fanning, 322 S.C. at 403 , 472 S.E.2d at 245 (involving an unconscionability analysis of a contract that did not contain an arbitration provision), with Simpson v. MSA of Myrtle Beach, Inc., 373 S.C. 14 , 24–25, 644 S.E.2d 663, 668 (2007) (involving a similar unconscionability analysis for a contract that contained an arbitration provision). | 3 | 3 |
Carolina Care Plan, Inc. v. United Healthcare Services, Inc.green2 sentences2023Horton, Inc., 417 S.C. 42 , 48- 49, 790 S.E.2d 1, 4 (2016) (holding the question of whether an arbitration provision is unconscionable is for the court to decide), with Carolina Care Plan, Inc. v. United HealthCare Servs., Inc., 361 S.C. 544, 555 , 606 S.E.2d 752, 758 (2004) (holding the arbitrator must hear an unconscionability challenge where the party seeking to avoid arbitration "failed to allege that it lacked a meaningful choice as to the arbitration clause specifically"). 2023Horton, Inc., 417 S.C. 42 , 48- 49, 790 S.E.2d 1, 4 (2016) (holding the question of whether an arbitration provision is unconscionable is for the court to decide), with Carolina Care Plan, Inc. v. United HealthCare Servs., Inc., 361 S.C. 544, 555 , 606 S.E.2d 752, 758 (2004) (holding the arbitrator must hear an unconscionability challenge where the party seeking to avoid arbitration "failed to allege that it lacked a meaningful choice as to the arbitration clause specifically"). | 2 | 2 |
Fanning v. Fritz's Pontiac-Cadillac-Buick, Inc.green2 sentences2022Compare Fanning, 322 S.C. at 403 , 472 S.E.2d at 245 (involving an unconscionability analysis of a contract that did not contain an arbitration provision), with Simpson v. MSA of Myrtle Beach, Inc., 373 S.C. 14 , 24–25, 644 S.E.2d 663, 668 (2007) (involving a similar unconscionability analysis for a contract that contained an arbitration provision). 2022Compare Fanning, 322 S.C. at 403 , 472 S.E.2d at 245 (involving an unconscionability analysis of a contract that did not contain an arbitration provision), with Simpson v. MSA of Myrtle Beach, Inc., 373 S.C. 14 , 24–25, 644 S.E.2d 663, 668 (2007) (involving a similar unconscionability analysis for a contract that contained an arbitration provision). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Munoz v. Green Tree Financial Corp.green2 sentences2007But see Munoz, 343 S.C. 531 , 542 S.E.2d 360 (failing to factor in the weaker party’s status as a consumer in analyzing an unconscionability claim in an arbitration agreement between a consumer and a lender). 2007But see Munoz, 343 S.C. 531 , 542 S.E.2d 360 (failing to factor in the weaker party’s status as a consumer in analyzing an unconscionability claim in an arbitration agreement between a consumer and a lender). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.
green
2 sentences2023Co., 388 U.S. 395 (1967). 2022Co., 388 U.S. 395 (1967). | 2 | 2022–2023 |
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.