Hudson v. Citibank (South Dakota) NA
Alaska Supreme Court
1DissentMaassen, Justice
The determinative issue in this ease is whether Citibank’s claim for attorney’s fees under Alaska Civil Rule 82 is “closely related” to Janet Hudson’s claim in response: that Citibank’s attorney’s fees claim is greatly inflated, violates the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (UTPA), and entitles Hudson to statutory remedies. I believe the attorney’s fees claim and the UTPA-based response to it are indeed closely related. For that reason, and because the language of the parties’ contract has no effect on the court’s authority to find that a party waived arbitration through its…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. RoperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Cabinetree of Wisconsin, Incorporated v. Kraftmaid Cabinetry, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
- State v. O'Neill Investigations, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1980
- Republic Insurance v. Paico Receivables, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2004
- Krinsk v. SunTrust Banks, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2011
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.