procedural unconscionability inquiry (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

procedural unconscionability inquiry in Washington

7 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2015 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Torgerson v. One Lincoln Tower, LLCgreen
wash · 2009 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009The key inquiry is whether the party lacked meaningful choice, returning the focus to the procedural unconscionability analysis. 12 See Torgerson, 166 Wn.2d at 519 ; Zuver, 153 Wn.2d at 305 . ¶26 In Torgerson, the Supreme Court considered whether the limitation on remedies in a real estate contract was unconscionable. 166 Wn.2d at 513, 517 .

2009The key inquiry is whether the party lacked meaningful choice, returning the focus to the procedural unconscionability analysis. 12 See Torgerson, 166 Wn.2d at 519 ; Zuver, 153 Wn.2d at 305 . ¶26 In Torgerson, the Supreme Court considered whether the limitation on remedies in a real estate contract was unconscionable. 166 Wn.2d at 513, 517 .

33
Luna v. Household Finance Corp. IIIgreen
wawd · 2002 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 122 Wash.2d 371, 393 , 858 P.2d 245 (1993) (Noting that elements of adhesion contract are considered in the "circumstances" element of the procedural unconscionability inquiry.). [29] Nelson v. McGoldrick, 127 Wash.2d 124, 136 , 896 P.2d 1258 (1995). [30] Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 . [31] Mendez, 111 Wash.App. at 459 , 45 P.3d 594 (quoting Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 ). [32] 293 Mont. 512 , 977 P.2d 989 (1999). [33] Iwen, 977 P.2d at 995-96. [34] 28 Cal.3d 807 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 623 P.2d 165 (1981). [35] Graham, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 62

2004(A shrink-wrap software license which required the use of a French arbitration company, payment of an advance fee of $4,000 (half which was nonrefundable), significant travel fees borne by the consumer, and payment of the loser's attorney fees was found substantively unconscionable); Luna, 236 F.Supp.2d 1166 (A consumer loan transaction deemed to be unconscionable given the one-sidedness of the terms); Iwen v. U.S. West Direct, 293 Mont. 512 , 977 P.2d 989 (1999).

11
Morelite Construction Corp. v. New York City District Council Carpenters Benefit Fundsgreen
ca2 · 1984 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
1 sentence

2004No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 122 Wash.2d 371, 393 , 858 P.2d 245 (1993) (Noting that elements of adhesion contract are considered in the "circumstances" element of the procedural unconscionability inquiry.). [29] Nelson v. McGoldrick, 127 Wash.2d 124, 136 , 896 P.2d 1258 (1995). [30] Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 . [31] Mendez, 111 Wash.App. at 459 , 45 P.3d 594 (quoting Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 ). [32] 293 Mont. 512 , 977 P.2d 989 (1999). [33] Iwen, 977 P.2d at 995-96. [34] 28 Cal.3d 807 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 623 P.2d 165 (1981). [35] Graham, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 62

11
Iwen v. US West Directgreen
mont · 1999 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 122 Wash.2d 371, 393 , 858 P.2d 245 (1993) (Noting that elements of adhesion contract are considered in the "circumstances" element of the procedural unconscionability inquiry.). [29] Nelson v. McGoldrick, 127 Wash.2d 124, 136 , 896 P.2d 1258 (1995). [30] Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 . [31] Mendez, 111 Wash.App. at 459 , 45 P.3d 594 (quoting Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 ). [32] 293 Mont. 512 , 977 P.2d 989 (1999). [33] Iwen, 977 P.2d at 995-96. [34] 28 Cal.3d 807 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 623 P.2d 165 (1981). [35] Graham, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 62

2004No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 122 Wash.2d 371, 393 , 858 P.2d 245 (1993) (Noting that elements of adhesion contract are considered in the "circumstances" element of the procedural unconscionability inquiry.). [29] Nelson v. McGoldrick, 127 Wash.2d 124, 136 , 896 P.2d 1258 (1995). [30] Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 . [31] Mendez, 111 Wash.App. at 459 , 45 P.3d 594 (quoting Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 ). [32] 293 Mont. 512 , 977 P.2d 989 (1999). [33] Iwen, 977 P.2d at 995-96. [34] 28 Cal.3d 807 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 623 P.2d 165 (1981). [35] Graham, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 62

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (13)

CaseCitedYears
Zuver v. Airtouch Communications, Inc. green
wash · 2004
2 sentences

2009The key inquiry is whether the party lacked meaningful choice, returning the focus to the procedural unconscionability analysis. 12 See Torgerson, 166 Wn.2d at 519 ; Zuver, 153 Wn.2d at 305 . ¶26 In Torgerson, the Supreme Court considered whether the limitation on remedies in a real estate contract was unconscionable. 166 Wn.2d at 513, 517 .

2009The key inquiry is whether the party lacked meaningful choice, returning the focus to the procedural unconscionability analysis. [12] See Torgerson, 166 Wash.2d at 519 , 210 P.3d 318 ; Zuver, 153 Wash.2d at 305 , 103 P.3d 753 . ¶ 26 In Torgerson, the Supreme Court considered whether the limitation on remedies in a real estate contract was unconscionable. 166 Wash.2d at 513, 517 , 210 P.3d 318 .

32009–2009
Yakima County (West Valley) Fire Protection District No. 12 v. City of Yakima green
wash · 1993
2 sentences

2004No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 122 Wn.2d 371, 393 , 858 P.2d 245 (1993) (noting that elements of adhesion contract are considered in the “circumstances” element of the procedural unconscionability inquiry).

2004No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 122 Wn.2d 371, 393 , 858 P.2d 245 (1993) (noting that elements of adhesion contract are considered in the “circumstances” element of the procedural unconscionability inquiry).

31994–2004
Torgerson v. One Lincoln Tower, LLC green
wash · 2009
2 sentences

2009The key inquiry is whether the party lacked meaningful choice, returning the focus to the procedural unconscionability analysis. [12] See Torgerson, 166 Wash.2d at 519 , 210 P.3d 318 ; Zuver, 153 Wash.2d at 305 , 103 P.3d 753 . ¶ 26 In Torgerson, the Supreme Court considered whether the limitation on remedies in a real estate contract was unconscionable. 166 Wash.2d at 513, 517 , 210 P.3d 318 .

2009The key inquiry is whether the party lacked meaningful choice, returning the focus to the procedural unconscionability analysis. [12] See Torgerson, 166 Wash.2d at 519 , 210 P.3d 318 ; Zuver, 153 Wash.2d at 305 , 103 P.3d 753 . ¶ 26 In Torgerson, the Supreme Court considered whether the limitation on remedies in a real estate contract was unconscionable. 166 Wash.2d at 513, 517 , 210 P.3d 318 .

22009–2009
Zuver v. Airtouch Communications, Inc. green
wash · 2004
2 sentences

2009The key inquiry is whether the party lacked meaningful choice, returning the focus to the procedural unconscionability analysis. [12] See Torgerson, 166 Wash.2d at 519 , 210 P.3d 318 ; Zuver, 153 Wash.2d at 305 , 103 P.3d 753 . ¶ 26 In Torgerson, the Supreme Court considered whether the limitation on remedies in a real estate contract was unconscionable. 166 Wash.2d at 513, 517 , 210 P.3d 318 .

2009The key inquiry is whether the party lacked meaningful choice, returning the focus to the procedural unconscionability analysis. [12] See Torgerson, 166 Wash.2d at 519 , 210 P.3d 318 ; Zuver, 153 Wash.2d at 305 , 103 P.3d 753 . ¶ 26 In Torgerson, the Supreme Court considered whether the limitation on remedies in a real estate contract was unconscionable. 166 Wash.2d at 513, 517 , 210 P.3d 318 .

22009–2009
Nelson v. McGoldrick green
wash · 1995
2 sentences

2004No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 122 Wash.2d 371, 393 , 858 P.2d 245 (1993) (Noting that elements of adhesion contract are considered in the "circumstances" element of the procedural unconscionability inquiry.). [29] Nelson v. McGoldrick, 127 Wash.2d 124, 136 , 896 P.2d 1258 (1995). [30] Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 . [31] Mendez, 111 Wash.App. at 459 , 45 P.3d 594 (quoting Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 ). [32] 293 Mont. 512 , 977 P.2d 989 (1999). [33] Iwen, 977 P.2d at 995-96. [34] 28 Cal.3d 807 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 623 P.2d 165 (1981). [35] Graham, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 62

2004No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 122 Wash.2d 371, 393 , 858 P.2d 245 (1993) (Noting that elements of adhesion contract are considered in the "circumstances" element of the procedural unconscionability inquiry.). [29] Nelson v. McGoldrick, 127 Wash.2d 124, 136 , 896 P.2d 1258 (1995). [30] Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 . [31] Mendez, 111 Wash.App. at 459 , 45 P.3d 594 (quoting Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 ). [32] 293 Mont. 512 , 977 P.2d 989 (1999). [33] Iwen, 977 P.2d at 995-96. [34] 28 Cal.3d 807 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 623 P.2d 165 (1981). [35] Graham, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 62

22004–2004
Adler v. Fred Lind Manor green
wash · 2004
1 sentence

2015Instructive is Zuver’s companion case, Adler v. Fred Lind Manor, 153 Wn.2d 331 , 103 P.3d 773 (2004). ¶18 There the court was unable to resolve the employee’s procedural unconscionability claim.

12015–2015
Adler v. Fred Lind Manor green
wash · 2005
2 sentences

2015Instructive is Zuver’s companion case, Adler v. Fred Lind Manor, 153 Wn.2d 331 , 103 P.3d 773 (2004). ¶18 There the court was unable to resolve the employee’s procedural unconscionability claim.

2015Id.

12015–2015
Iwen v. U.S. West Direct green
mont · 1999
2 sentences

2004No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 122 Wash.2d 371, 393 , 858 P.2d 245 (1993) (Noting that elements of adhesion contract are considered in the "circumstances" element of the procedural unconscionability inquiry.). [29] Nelson v. McGoldrick, 127 Wash.2d 124, 136 , 896 P.2d 1258 (1995). [30] Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 . [31] Mendez, 111 Wash.App. at 459 , 45 P.3d 594 (quoting Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 ). [32] 293 Mont. 512 , 977 P.2d 989 (1999). [33] Iwen, 977 P.2d at 995-96. [34] 28 Cal.3d 807 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 623 P.2d 165 (1981). [35] Graham, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 62

2004(A shrink-wrap software license which required the use of a French arbitration company, payment of an advance fee of $4,000 (half which was nonrefundable), significant travel fees borne by the consumer, and payment of the loser's attorney fees was found substantively unconscionable); Luna, 236 F.Supp.2d 1166 (A consumer loan transaction deemed to be unconscionable given the one-sidedness of the terms); Iwen v. U.S. West Direct, 293 Mont. 512 , 977 P.2d 989 (1999).

12004–2004
Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc. green
cal · 1981
2 sentences

2004No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 122 Wash.2d 371, 393 , 858 P.2d 245 (1993) (Noting that elements of adhesion contract are considered in the "circumstances" element of the procedural unconscionability inquiry.). [29] Nelson v. McGoldrick, 127 Wash.2d 124, 136 , 896 P.2d 1258 (1995). [30] Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 . [31] Mendez, 111 Wash.App. at 459 , 45 P.3d 594 (quoting Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 ). [32] 293 Mont. 512 , 977 P.2d 989 (1999). [33] Iwen, 977 P.2d at 995-96. [34] 28 Cal.3d 807 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 623 P.2d 165 (1981). [35] Graham, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 62

2004No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 122 Wash.2d 371, 393 , 858 P.2d 245 (1993) (Noting that elements of adhesion contract are considered in the "circumstances" element of the procedural unconscionability inquiry.). [29] Nelson v. McGoldrick, 127 Wash.2d 124, 136 , 896 P.2d 1258 (1995). [30] Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 . [31] Mendez, 111 Wash.App. at 459 , 45 P.3d 594 (quoting Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 ). [32] 293 Mont. 512 , 977 P.2d 989 (1999). [33] Iwen, 977 P.2d at 995-96. [34] 28 Cal.3d 807 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 623 P.2d 165 (1981). [35] Graham, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 62

12004–2004
Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc. green
nyappdiv · 1998
2 sentences

2004No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 122 Wash.2d 371, 393 , 858 P.2d 245 (1993) (Noting that elements of adhesion contract are considered in the "circumstances" element of the procedural unconscionability inquiry.). [29] Nelson v. McGoldrick, 127 Wash.2d 124, 136 , 896 P.2d 1258 (1995). [30] Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 . [31] Mendez, 111 Wash.App. at 459 , 45 P.3d 594 (quoting Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 ). [32] 293 Mont. 512 , 977 P.2d 989 (1999). [33] Iwen, 977 P.2d at 995-96. [34] 28 Cal.3d 807 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 623 P.2d 165 (1981). [35] Graham, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 62

2004No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 122 Wash.2d 371, 393 , 858 P.2d 245 (1993) (Noting that elements of adhesion contract are considered in the "circumstances" element of the procedural unconscionability inquiry.). [29] Nelson v. McGoldrick, 127 Wash.2d 124, 136 , 896 P.2d 1258 (1995). [30] Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 . [31] Mendez, 111 Wash.App. at 459 , 45 P.3d 594 (quoting Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 ). [32] 293 Mont. 512 , 977 P.2d 989 (1999). [33] Iwen, 977 P.2d at 995-96. [34] 28 Cal.3d 807 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 623 P.2d 165 (1981). [35] Graham, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 62

12004–2004
Mendez v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. green
washctapp · 2002
1 sentence

2004No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 122 Wash.2d 371, 393 , 858 P.2d 245 (1993) (Noting that elements of adhesion contract are considered in the "circumstances" element of the procedural unconscionability inquiry.). [29] Nelson v. McGoldrick, 127 Wash.2d 124, 136 , 896 P.2d 1258 (1995). [30] Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 . [31] Mendez, 111 Wash.App. at 459 , 45 P.3d 594 (quoting Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 ). [32] 293 Mont. 512 , 977 P.2d 989 (1999). [33] Iwen, 977 P.2d at 995-96. [34] 28 Cal.3d 807 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 623 P.2d 165 (1981). [35] Graham, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 62

12004–2004
Mendez v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. green
washctapp · 2002
1 sentence

2004No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 122 Wash.2d 371, 393 , 858 P.2d 245 (1993) (Noting that elements of adhesion contract are considered in the "circumstances" element of the procedural unconscionability inquiry.). [29] Nelson v. McGoldrick, 127 Wash.2d 124, 136 , 896 P.2d 1258 (1995). [30] Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 . [31] Mendez, 111 Wash.App. at 459 , 45 P.3d 594 (quoting Nelson, 127 Wash.2d at 131 , 896 P.2d 1258 ). [32] 293 Mont. 512 , 977 P.2d 989 (1999). [33] Iwen, 977 P.2d at 995-96. [34] 28 Cal.3d 807 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 623 P.2d 165 (1981). [35] Graham, 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 62

12004–2004
Jeffery v. Weintraub green
washctapp · 1982
2 sentences

1994Yakima, 122 Wn.2d at 391 ; Jeffery v. Weintraub, 32 Wn.

1994Yakima, 122 Wn.2d at 391 ; Jeffery v. Weintraub, 32 Wn.

11994–1994

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 9u.s.c.1-14 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.060 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.070 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.280 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.901 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 38 (2009–2026) WA 7 (1994–2015) TX 5 (2007–2019) IL 5 (2009–2021) IA 3 (2008–2020) NV 2 (2018–2018)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check