7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ryan v. Dan's Food Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2022See Sosa v. Paulos, 924 P.2d 357, 360 (Utah 1996) (stating that “[t]he determination of whether a contract is unconscionable is . . . a question of law for the court” to decide). ¶53 MX, as the party claiming that a contractual provision is unconscionable, “bears a heavy burden.” See Ryan v. Dan’s Food Stores, Inc., 972 P.2d 395, 402 (Utah 1998); see also Resource Mgmt. 2006See id. ¶ 36 Here, other than claiming that DSI “received no legal or financial advice regard *153 ing the Note,” DSI does not assert, and there is no evidence demonstrating, that DSI did not have a reasonable opportunity to understand the Note or negotiate it if DSI had so desired. | 2 | 2 |
Sosa v. Paulosgreen2 sentences2022See Sosa v. Paulos, 924 P.2d 357, 360 (Utah 1996) (stating that “[t]he determination of whether a contract is unconscionable is . . . a question of law for the court” to decide). ¶53 MX, as the party claiming that a contractual provision is unconscionable, “bears a heavy burden.” See Ryan v. Dan’s Food Stores, Inc., 972 P.2d 395, 402 (Utah 1998); see also Resource Mgmt. 1998Substantive unconscionability focuses on "the contents of an agreement, examining the `relative fairness of the obligations assumed.'" Id. (quoting Resource Management, 706 P.2d at 1043 ). | 1 | 2 |
Ora Lee Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Company, William Thorne v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Companygreen1 sentence2023See id. | 1 | 1 |
Woodhaven Apartments v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2012See, eg., Woodhaven Apartments v. Washington, 942 P.2d 918, 925 (Utah 1997) (noting that the court must find the disparity between liquidated and actual damages "shock{[s] the conscience or produce[s] a profound sense of injustice before there can be a determination of unconscionability"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
England Logistics v. Kelles Transport Service
green
1 sentence2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Volonte v. Domo, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023Volonte has not adequately briefed any argument about the applicability of the unconscionability doctrine to a shareholder’s purchase of stock in a corporation governed by bylaws, let alone demonstrated that he (continued…) 20210399-CA 18 2023 UT App 25 Volonte v. Domo, Inc. II. 2023He’s therefore provided us with no basis, and we see none, for concluding that the unconscionability doctrine requires reversal in this case. 20210399-CA 19 2023 UT App 25 Volonte v. Domo, Inc. undisputed sequence of events at issue. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Stein Eriksen Lodge v. MX Technologies
green
1 sentence2022After Commercial Real Estate, as we understand it, liquidated (continued…) 20200256-CA 23 2022 UT App 30 Stein Eriksen v. MX Technologies, Inc. attacking the liquidated damages provisions found in the Stein contracts, MX invokes the doctrine of unconscionability, a doctrine that presents only legal issues for the court (rather than factual issues for a jury). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Commercial Real Estate Investment, L.C. v. Comcast of Utah II, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014Id. 145 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Resource Management Co. v. Weston Ranch
green
1 sentence1998Substantive unconscionability focuses on "the contents of an agreement, examining the `relative fairness of the obligations assumed.'" Id. (quoting Resource Management, 706 P.2d at 1043 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.