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.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1896–2001 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
California Grocers Assn. v. Bank of Americagreen2 sentences2001The court concluded that "the reverse side of exhibit A is unenforceable as lacking a mutuality of assent and as the product of procedural unconscionability." The court overlooked the principle that the elements of procedural and substantive unconscionability must both be present before a court may refuse to enforce a contract. ( Robison v. City of Manteca (2000) 78 Cal. App.4th 452, 458-459 , 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 748 ; Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc., supra, at p. 1533, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 138 ; 2h Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal. App.4th 1199, 1212-1213 , 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 533 ; see American 2001The court concluded that "the reverse side of exhibit A is unenforceable as lacking a mutuality of assent and as the product of procedural unconscionability." The court overlooked the principle that the elements of procedural and substantive unconscionability must both be present before a court may refuse to enforce a contract. ( Robison v. City of Manteca (2000) 78 Cal. App.4th 452, 458-459 , 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 748 ; Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc., supra, at p. 1533, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 138 ; 2h Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal. App.4th 1199, 1212-1213 , 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 533 ; see American | 2 | 2 |
American Software, Inc. v. Aligreen2 sentences2001The court concluded that "the reverse side of exhibit A is unenforceable as lacking a mutuality of assent and as the product of procedural unconscionability." The court overlooked the principle that the elements of procedural and substantive unconscionability must both be present before a court may refuse to enforce a contract. ( Robison v. City of Manteca (2000) 78 Cal. App.4th 452, 458-459 , 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 748 ; Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc., supra, at p. 1533, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 138 ; 2h Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal. App.4th 1199, 1212-1213 , 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 533 ; see American 2001The court concluded that "the reverse side of exhibit A is unenforceable as lacking a mutuality of assent and as the product of procedural unconscionability." The court overlooked the principle that the elements of procedural and substantive unconscionability must both be present before a court may refuse to enforce a contract. ( Robison v. City of Manteca (2000) 78 Cal. App.4th 452, 458-459 , 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 748 ; Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc., supra, at p. 1533, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 138 ; 2h Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal. App.4th 1199, 1212-1213 , 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 533 ; see American | 2 | 2 |
24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sonoma Cty.green2 sentences2001The court concluded that "the reverse side of exhibit A is unenforceable as lacking a mutuality of assent and as the product of procedural unconscionability." The court overlooked the principle that the elements of procedural and substantive unconscionability must both be present before a court may refuse to enforce a contract. ( Robison v. City of Manteca (2000) 78 Cal. App.4th 452, 458-459 , 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 748 ; Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc., supra, at p. 1533, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 138 ; 2h Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal. App.4th 1199, 1212-1213 , 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 533 ; see American 2001The court concluded that "the reverse side of exhibit A is unenforceable as lacking a mutuality of assent and as the product of procedural unconscionability." The court overlooked the principle that the elements of procedural and substantive unconscionability must both be present before a court may refuse to enforce a contract. ( Robison v. City of Manteca (2000) 78 Cal. App.4th 452, 458-459 , 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 748 ; Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc., supra, at p. 1533, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 138 ; 2h Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal. App.4th 1199, 1212-1213 , 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 533 ; see American | 1 | 2 |
Robison v. City of Mantecagreen2 sentences2001The court concluded that "the reverse side of exhibit A is unenforceable as lacking a mutuality of assent and as the product of procedural unconscionability." The court overlooked the principle that the elements of procedural and substantive unconscionability must both be present before a court may refuse to enforce a contract. ( Robison v. City of Manteca (2000) 78 Cal. App.4th 452, 458-459 , 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 748 ; Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc., supra, at p. 1533, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 138 ; 2h Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal. App.4th 1199, 1212-1213 , 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 533 ; see American 2001The court concluded that "the reverse side of exhibit A is unenforceable as lacking a mutuality of assent and as the product of procedural unconscionability." The court overlooked the principle that the elements of procedural and substantive unconscionability must both be present before a court may refuse to enforce a contract. ( Robison v. City of Manteca (2000) 78 Cal. App.4th 452, 458-459 , 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 748 ; Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc., supra, at p. 1533, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 138 ; 2h Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal. App.4th 1199, 1212-1213 , 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 533 ; see American | 1 | 2 |
A & M PRODUCE CO. v. FMC Corp.green1 sentence2001The court concluded that "the reverse side of exhibit A is unenforceable as lacking a mutuality of assent and as the product of procedural unconscionability." The court overlooked the principle that the elements of procedural and substantive unconscionability must both be present before a court may refuse to enforce a contract. ( Robison v. City of Manteca (2000) 78 Cal. App.4th 452, 458-459 , 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 748 ; Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc., supra, at p. 1533, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 138 ; 2h Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal. App.4th 1199, 1212-1213 , 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 533 ; see American | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commissioners of Sedgwick County v. Bunker
green
2 sentences1897It was there held, as in other cases above cited, in the language quoted from Sedgwick County v. Bunker, 16 Kan. 498 , that “where a county is divided, the rule for the division and apportionment of the debts and property between such county and detached territory be longs exclusively to the legislature and not to the courts; and, when the legislature has determined how the debts and property shall be divided and apportioned, the courts cannot interfere.” The court further said: “The act prescribed the limits of each county’s rights, and the methods by which they were to be ascertained. 1896In Sedgwick County v. Bunker, 16 Kan. 498 , it was said: “Where a county is divided, the rule for the division and apportionment of the debts and property between such county and detached territory belongs exclusively to the legislature, and not to the courts; and, when the legislature has determined how the debts and property shall be divided and apportioned, the courts cannot interfere.” In creating the county of Orange the legislature determined how the debts and property of Los Angeles county should be divided and apportioned, as it had full power to do. | 2 | 1896–1897 |
Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc.
green
1 sentence2001The court concluded that "the reverse side of exhibit A is unenforceable as lacking a mutuality of assent and as the product of procedural unconscionability." The court overlooked the principle that the elements of procedural and substantive unconscionability must both be present before a court may refuse to enforce a contract. ( Robison v. City of Manteca (2000) 78 Cal. App.4th 452, 458-459 , 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 748 ; Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc., supra, at p. 1533, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 138 ; 2h Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal. App.4th 1199, 1212-1213 , 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 533 ; see American | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Nguyen
green
2 sentences1993(See, e.g., People v. Nguyen (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 181 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 40 ].) Calderon claims the court overlooked factors in mitigation, but that is not the case. 1993(See, e.g., People v. Nguyen (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 181 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 40 ].) Calderon claims the court overlooked factors in mitigation, but that is not the case. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.