unconscionability means doctrine (West Virginia) · Go Syfert
← West Virginia issues

unconscionability means doctrine in West Virginia

7 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2021 1 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Hume v. United Statesgreen
· 1889 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017Cf. McGinnis v. Cayton, 173 W.Va. 102, 113 , 312 S.E.2d 765, 776 (1984) (quoting Hume v. United States, 132 U.S. 406, 411 (1889) (“It may be apparent from the intrinsic nature and subject of the bargain itself; such as no man in his senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair man would accept on the other; which are unequitable and unconscientious bargains.”). 13 is flexible, and is “intended to be sensitive to the realities and nuances of the bargaining process[.]”21 Like West Virginia, New York law holds that a party alleging unconscionability must gen

11
McGinnis v. Caytongreen
wva · 1984 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017Cf. McGinnis v. Cayton, 173 W.Va. 102, 113 , 312 S.E.2d 765, 776 (1984) (quoting Hume v. United States, 132 U.S. 406, 411 (1889) (“It may be apparent from the intrinsic nature and subject of the bargain itself; such as no man in his senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair man would accept on the other; which are unequitable and unconscientious bargains.”). 13 is flexible, and is “intended to be sensitive to the realities and nuances of the bargaining process[.]”21 Like West Virginia, New York law holds that a party alleging unconscionability must gen

2017Cf. McGinnis v. Cayton, 173 W.Va. 102, 113 , 312 S.E.2d 765, 776 (1984) (quoting Hume v. United States, 132 U.S. 406, 411 (1889) (“It may be apparent from the intrinsic nature and subject of the bargain itself; such as no man in his senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair man would accept on the other; which are unequitable and unconscientious bargains.”). 13 is flexible, and is “intended to be sensitive to the realities and nuances of the bargaining process[.]”21 Like West Virginia, New York law holds that a party alleging unconscionability must gen

11
Mandel v. Liebmangreen
ny · 1951 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017Mandel, 100 N.E.2d at 152 (quotations omitted).

2017Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown, 565 U.S. 530 (2012) (“Brown I”) (“The doctrine of unconscionability means that, because of an overall and gross imbalance, one-sidedness or lop-sidedness in a contract, a court may be justified in refusing to enforce the contract as written.”). 20 Mandel, 100 N.E.2d at 152 (quotations omitted).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Brown Ex Rel. Brown v. Genesis Healthcare green
wva · 2011
2 sentences

2021The concept of unconscionability must be applied in a flexible manner, taking into consideration all of the facts and circumstances of a particular case.’ Syllabus Point 12, Brown v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., 228 W.

2021The concept of unconscionability must be applied in a flexible manner, taking into consideration all of the facts and circumstances of a 9 Horizon further asserted in this same assignment of error that the circuit court erred by granting summary judgment five months prior to the close of discovery “providing an insufficient record for the circuit court as well as this Court to make any determination as to the existence of substantive unconscionability based upon the totality of the interactions between the [parties].” Given our disposition, we need not examine this issue. 10 particular case.”

62012–2021
Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown green
scotus · 2012
2 sentences

2017Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown, 565 U.S. 530 , 132 S.Ct. 1201 , 182 L.Ed.2d 42 (2012) ("Brown I") ("The doctrine of unconscionability means that, because of an overall and gross imbalance, one-sidedness or lop-sidedness in a contract, a court may be justified in refusing to enforce the contract as written.”). .

2017Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown, 565 U.S. 530 (2012) (“Brown I”) (“The doctrine of unconscionability means that, because of an overall and gross imbalance, one-sidedness or lop-sidedness in a contract, a court may be justified in refusing to enforce the contract as written.”). 20 Mandel, 100 N.E.2d at 152 (quotations omitted).

22013–2017
Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc. green
wva · 1995
1 sentence

2021Va. 52 , 459 S.E.2d 329 (1995). 5. “‘The doctrine of unconscionability means that, because of an overall and gross imbalance, one-sidedness or lop-sidedness in a contract, a court may be justified in refusing to enforce the contract as written.

12021–2021
State Ex Rel. Richmond American Homes of West Virginia, Inc. v. Sanders green
wva · 2011
2 sentences

2012If necessary, the trial court may consider the context of the arbitration clause within the four corners of the contract, or consider any extrinsic evidence detailing the formation and use of the contract. 228 W.Va. 125 , 717 S.E.2d 909 . 11 In Brown I, we said that the “doctrine of unconscionability means that, because of an overall and gross imbalance, one-sidedness or lop-sidedness in a contract, a court may be justified in refusing to enforce the contract as written.” Syl.

2012If necessary, the trial court may consider the context of the arbitration clause within the four corners of the contract, or consider any extrinsic evidence detailing the formation and use of the contract. 228 W.Va. 125 , 717 S.E.2d 909 . 11 In Brown I, we said that the “doctrine of unconscionability means that, because of an overall and gross imbalance, one-sidedness or lop-sidedness in a contract, a court may be justified in refusing to enforce the contract as written.” Syl.

12012–2012

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 9u.s.c.2 (5)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check