Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by West 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coneff v. AT & T CORP.green1 sentence2013Similarly, the Ninth Circuit has explained that Concepcion “forcloses [the] argument” that “class-action waivers are unconscionable” based “on a case-by-case, evidence-specific finding of exculpation.” Coneff v. AT&T Corp., 673 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Cruz v. Cingular Wireless, LLCgreen1 sentence2013As one court has noted, discovery on these topics “goes only to substantiating the very public policy arguments that were expressly rejected by the Supreme Court in Concepcion – namely, that the class action waiver will be exculpatory, because most of these small-value claims will go undetected and unprosecuted.” Cruz v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 648 F.3d 1205, 1214 (11th Cir. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Beneficial Consumer Discount Co.green2 sentences1981The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has aptly identified the consequences of the failure to permit a review of this denial of a class action in Bell v. Beneficial Consumer Discount Company, 465 Pa. 225, 231 , 348 A.2d 734, 737 (1975): “Refusing to allow appeals here would undermine the basic objectives of the class action rule. 1981The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has aptly identified the consequences of the failure to permit a review of this denial of a class action in Bell v. Beneficial Consumer Discount Company, 465 Pa. 225, 231 , 348 A.2d 734, 737 (1975): “Refusing to allow appeals here would undermine the basic objectives of the class action rule. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Torrence v. Nationwide Budget Financegreen2 sentences2016Id. at 371; but see Torrence v. Nationwide Budget Fin., 753 S.E.2d 802, 812 (N.C. App. 2014) (recognizing Tillman’s substantive unconscionability analysis is undermined by “[b]oth Concepcion and Italian Colors9 [which] hold that a class action waiver does not render an arbitration agreement unconscionable.”). 2016Id. at 371; but see Torrence v. Nationwide Budget Fin., 232 N.C.App. 306 , 753 S.E.2d 802, 812 (2014) (recognizing Tillman’s substantive unconscionability analysis is undermined by “[b]oth Concepcion and Italian Colors 9 [which] hold that a class action waiver does not render an arbitration agreement unconscionable.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant
green
2 sentences2017Subsequently, in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 670 U.S. 228 , 133 S.Ct. 2304 , 186 L.Ed.2d 417 (2013), the Court upheld a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement, noting that neither any contrary congressional command nor any judge-made exception to the FAA requires rejection of a class-arbitration waiver. 2017Subsequently, in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 670 U.S. 228 , 133 S.Ct. 2304 , 186 L.Ed.2d 417 (2013), the Court upheld a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement, noting that neither any contrary congressional command nor any judge-made exception to the FAA requires rejection of a class-arbitration waiver. | 2 | 2013–2017 |
At&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
green
2 sentences2013Homes of W.Va., Inc. v. Sanders, 228 W.Va. 125, 140 , 717 S.E.2d 909, 924 , we concluded that “the eircuit court erred in its finding that the class action waiver rendered Richmond’s arbitration provision unconscionable and void.” In reaching this conclusion, we observed that [i]n [AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1740 , 179 L.Ed.2d 742 ], the Supreme Court examined a California rule that, in certain circumstances, automatically invalidated an arbitration clause if it contained a class action waiver. 2013Homes of W.Va., Inc. v. Sanders, 228 W.Va. 125, 140 , 717 S.E.2d 909, 924 , we concluded that “the eircuit court erred in its finding that the class action waiver rendered Richmond’s arbitration provision unconscionable and void.” In reaching this conclusion, we observed that [i]n [AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1740 , 179 L.Ed.2d 742 ], the Supreme Court examined a California rule that, in certain circumstances, automatically invalidated an arbitration clause if it contained a class action waiver. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
State ex rel. McCaffery v. Hutchison
green
2 sentences2010With regard to our standard for reviewing this issue, it is established that "[t]his Court will review a circuit court's order granting or denying a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [1998] under an abuse of discretion standard." Syl. pt. 1, In re West Virginia Rezulin Litigation, 214 W.Va. 52 , 585 S.E.2d 52 (2003). 2010With regard to our standard for reviewing this issue, it is established that “[t]his Court will review a circuit court’s order granting or denying a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [1998] under an abuse of discretion standard.” Syl. pt. 1, In re West Virginia Rezulin Litigation, 214 W.Va. 52 , 585 S.E.2d 52 (2003). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
In Re West Virginia Rezulin Litigation
green
2 sentences2010With regard to our standard for reviewing this issue, it is established that "[t]his Court will review a circuit court's order granting or denying a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [1998] under an abuse of discretion standard." Syl. pt. 1, In re West Virginia Rezulin Litigation, 214 W.Va. 52 , 585 S.E.2d 52 (2003). 2010With regard to our standard for reviewing this issue, it is established that “[t]his Court will review a circuit court’s order granting or denying a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [1998] under an abuse of discretion standard.” Syl. pt. 1, In re West Virginia Rezulin Litigation, 214 W.Va. 52 , 585 S.E.2d 52 (2003). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State Ex Rel. Richmond American Homes of West Virginia, Inc. v. Sanders
green
2 sentences2013Homes of W.Va., Inc. v. Sanders, 228 W.Va. 125, 140 , 717 S.E.2d 909, 924 , we concluded that “the eircuit court erred in its finding that the class action waiver rendered Richmond’s arbitration provision unconscionable and void.” In reaching this conclusion, we observed that [i]n [AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1740 , 179 L.Ed.2d 742 ], the Supreme Court examined a California rule that, in certain circumstances, automatically invalidated an arbitration clause if it contained a class action waiver. 2013Homes of W.Va., Inc. v. Sanders, 228 W.Va. 125, 140 , 717 S.E.2d 909, 924 , we concluded that “the eircuit court erred in its finding that the class action waiver rendered Richmond’s arbitration provision unconscionable and void.” In reaching this conclusion, we observed that [i]n [AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1740 , 179 L.Ed.2d 742 ], the Supreme Court examined a California rule that, in certain circumstances, automatically invalidated an arbitration clause if it contained a class action waiver. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State Ex Rel. AT & T Mobility, LLC v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2013AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Wilson, 226 W.Va. 572 , 703 S.E.2d 543 (2010), that the mere existence of a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement does not render the agreement unconscionable. 2013AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Wilson, 226 W.Va. 572 , 703 S.E.2d 543 (2010), that the mere existence of a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement does not render the agreement unconscionable. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.