7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland 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 |
|---|---|---|
Goshorn v. Goshorngreen1 sentence2020“Mathematical disparity is only the starting point for an unconscionability analysis.” Goshorn v. Goshorn, 154 Md. | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Farbergreen2 sentences2005See Martin v. Father, 68 Md.App. at 144-45 , 510 A.2d at 611 (holding agreement valid after determining trial court incorrectly applied doctrine of unconscionability). 2005See Martin v. Father, 68 Md.App. at 144-45 , 510 A.2d at 611 (holding agreement valid after determining trial court incorrectly applied doctrine of unconscionability). | 1 | 1 |
Dreyer v. Dreyergreen2 sentences1986See, e.g., Dreyer v. Dreyer, 48 Or.App. 801 , 617 P.2d 955 (1980) (court set aside deed entered into by the parties in connection with their divorce, applying unconscionability concept). 1986See, e.g., Dreyer v. Dreyer, 48 Or.App. 801 , 617 P.2d 955 (1980) (court set aside deed entered into by the parties in connection with their divorce, applying unconscionability concept). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hale v. Hale
green
1 sentence2022App. 555, 561 (1988) (an unconscionability analysis requires assessment of the assets passing to the parties under a separation agreement).6 At the time 6 It is argued by Ms. Niceta, citing Hale, supra, that we consider only those assets divided pursuant to the Agreement. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Holloman v. Circuit City Stores, Inc.
green
1 sentence2007“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.” Id. (internal cite omitted). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006“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.” Armendariz, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745 , 6 P.3d at 690 , quoting Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc., 51 Cal.App.4th at 1533, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 138 . 2006"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." Armendariz, 99 Cal. Rptr.2d 745 , 6 P.3d at 690 , quoting Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc., 51 Cal.App.4th at 1533, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 138 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.
green
2 sentences2006"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." Armendariz, 99 Cal. Rptr.2d 745 , 6 P.3d at 690 , quoting Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc., 51 Cal.App.4th at 1533, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 138 . 2006"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." Armendariz, 99 Cal. Rptr.2d 745 , 6 P.3d at 690 , quoting Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc., 51 Cal.App.4th at 1533, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 138 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Ex Parte McNaughton
green
2 sentences2003The Court rejected McNaughton's contention that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable for lack of mutuality of obligation, as well as his argument that the language of the Arbitration Policy rendered it "void under the doctrine of unconscionability/mutuality of remedy." Id. at 596 . 2003The Court rejected McNaughton’s contention that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable for lack of mutuality of obligation, as well as his argument that the language of the Arbitration Policy rendered it “void under the doctrine of unconscionability/mutuality of remedy.” Id. at 596 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.