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 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2021 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless, LLCgreen2 sentences2021Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 223 Ill. 2d 1, 22 (2006). ¶ 12 The issue in this appeal is whether the arbitration provision upon which MLB and the Cubs rely, which is included in the terms and conditions as set forth on the Cubs’s website or at its administrative office and is summarized on the reverse side of the paper ticket used by the plaintiff, is unenforceable under the doctrine of procedural unconscionability. 2021Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 223 Ill. 2d 1, 22 (2006). ¶ 12 The issue in this appeal is whether the arbitration provision upon which MLB and the Cubs rely, which is included in the terms and conditions as set forth on the Cubs’ website or at its administrative office and is summarized on the reverse side of the paper ticket used by the plaintiff, is unenforceable under the doctrine of procedural unconscionability. | 3 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Frank's Maintenance & Engineering, Inc. v. C. A. Rorerts Co.
green
2 sentences2021App. 3d at 989-90 ). ¶ 26 One of the procedural unconscionability factors that we find especially important in this case is “ ‘the manner in which the contract was entered into.’ ” Id. (quoting Frank’s Maintenance & Engineering, 86 Ill. 2021App. 3d at 989-90 ). ¶ 26 One of the procedural unconscionability factors that we find especially important in this case is “ ‘the manner in which the contract was entered into.’ ” Id. (quoting Frank’s Maintenance & Engineering, 86 Ill. | 3 | 2021–2021 |
Razor v. Hyundai Motor America
green
2 sentences2021Razor, 222 Ill. 2d at 100-01 . 2021Razor, 222 Ill. 2d at 100-01 . | 3 | 2021–2021 |
Tortoriello v. Gerald Nissan of North Aurora, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021Id. ¶ 16 The doctrine of procedural unconscionability has been applied by the supreme court to invalidate a clause in a car warranty excluding consequential damages, based on evidence showing that the warranty was printed only in the car’s owner manual located inside the car’s glovebox and unavailable to the plaintiff until after she signed the purchase contract for the car. 2021Id. ¶ 16 The doctrine of procedural unconscionability has been applied by the supreme court to invalidate a clause in a car warranty excluding consequential damages, based on evidence showing that the warranty was printed only in the car’s owner manual located inside the car’s glovebox and unavailable to the plaintiff until after she signed the purchase contract for the car. | 3 | 2021–2021 |
Zuniga v. Major League Baseball
green
1 sentence2021The plaintiff argued that he had never given Green or anyone else at the Associated Press permission to agree to an arbitration provision on his behalf and that a non-signatory to a contract could not be bound to an arbitration clause he or she has not agreed to. ¶ 10 Alternatively, citing this court’s decision in Zuniga v. Major League Baseball, 2021 IL App (1st) 201264 , the plaintiff argued that even if a contract had been formed in the manner as argued by the Cubs, the arbitration provision was unenforceable under the doctrine of procedural unconscionability. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.