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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 14 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 Ting v. At&t.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ting v. At&t Anchor | green | “look beyond facial neutrality and examine the actual effects of the challenged provision.” | 6 |
| 2 | Kinney v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. | green | “concerns the manner in which the contract was negotiated and the circumstances of the parties at that time.” | 5 |
| 3 | Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc. | green | “arises from an inequality in bargaining power which results in no real negotiation and an absence of meaningful choice.” | 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.