Williams v. Central Money Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) is “substantive” law that 24 a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction must apply under Erie R.R. Co. v. 25 Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)
• “The claim of common law unconscionability appears to apply only defensively, for example, as a response to an attempt to enforce a contract.”
• “The claim of common law unconscionability appears to apply only defensively, for example, as a response to an attempt to enforce a contract.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).