Sitogum Holdings, Inc. v. Ropes

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• endorsing a sliding scale approach to unconscionability, and holding that a claim for unconscionability should not be barred “when one factor [ie. procedural or substantive] is greatly exceeded, while the other only marginally so”
• quoted with approval in Muhammad v. Cnty. Bank, Rehoboth Beach, 189 N.J. 1, 15 (2006), 15 A-2345-12T1 cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1338, 127 S. Ct. 2032, 167 L. Ed. 2d 763 (2007)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).