4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 16 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Smith, Valentino & Smith, Inc. v. Superior Court.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Smith, Valentino & Smith, Inc. v. Superior Court Anchor | green | “forum selection clauses are valid and may be given effect, in the court's discretion and in the absence of a showing that enforcement of such a clause would be unreasonable.” | 6 |
| 2 | INTERSHOP COMMUNICATIONS, AG v. Superior Court | green | “a forum selection clause within an adhesion contract will be enforced as long as the clause provided adequate notice to the party that he was agreeing to the jurisdiction cited in the contract.” | 4 |
| 3 | Smith, Valentino & Smith, Inc. v. Superior Court | green | “mere inconvenience or additional expense” | 3 |
| 4 | Cal-State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh | green | “neither inconvenience nor additional expense in litigating in the selected forum is part of the test of unreasonability.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.