7 Virginia opinions name it 3 courts 2009–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Galloway v. Gallowaygreen2 sentences2009Galloway involved the husband’s receipt of what we concluded was approximately 94% of the marital assets 2 pursuant to the parties’ agreement, which we merely assumed established the first prong of the unconscionability test. 47 Va.App. at 92-93 , 622 S.E.2d at 272 . 2009Galloway involved the husband’s receipt of what we concluded was approximately 94% of the marital assets 2 pursuant to the parties’ agreement, which we merely assumed established the first prong of the unconscionability test. 47 Va.App. at 92-93 , 622 S.E.2d at 272 . | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sims v. Sims
green
2 sentences2026Other cases have held that “when gross disparity is so extreme as to prove ‘pecuniary necessities,’ it establishes both prongs of the unconscionability test.” Sims v. Sims, 55 Va. App. 340 , 350 n.1 (2009). 2013We also find that the evidence does not prove as a matter of law that the separation agreement “would create the pecuniary necessity” that this Court in Sims, 55 Va. App. 340 , 685 S.E.2d 869 , found would necessarily establish both prongs of the unconscionability test. | 3 | 2013–2026 |
Derby v. Derby
green
2 sentences2012The Court in Derby identified an inadequacy of consideration as a prerequisite for operation of the doctrine of unconscionability, but stated that, “if inadequacy of price or inequality in value are the only indicia of unconscionability, the case must be extreme to justify relief.” Id. 2009Id. at 91 , 622 S.E.2d at 271 (quoting Derby, 8 Va.App. at 29 , 378 S.E.2d at 79 (quoting Pomeroy, supra, § 928)). | 2 | 2009–2012 |
Dan Ryan Builders, Inc. v. Nelson
green
1 sentence2016However, the court went on to add that “under the doctrine of unconscionability, atrial 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.” Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Smyth Bros.-McCleary-McClellan Co. v. Beresford
green
2 sentences2012McCleary-McClellan Co. v. Beresford, 128 Va. 137 (1920), the Supreme Court ofVirginia stated, with regard to the doctrine of unconscionability, that “Cancelling an executed contract is an exertion of the most extraordinary power of a court of equity” and that “the power ought not to be exercised except in a clear case.” Id. at 170 . 2012McCleary-McClellan Co. v. Beresford, 128 Va. 137 (1920), the Supreme Court ofVirginia stated, with regard to the doctrine of unconscionability, that “Cancelling an executed contract is an exertion of the most extraordinary power of a court of equity” and that “the power ought not to be exercised except in a clear case.” Id. at 170 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.