Martz v. Beneficial Montana, Inc.
Montana Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Rice
¶ 1 Appellants Timothy and Robin Martz appeal from the order of the Sixth Judicial District Court granting Respondent Beneficial Montana, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration. Appellants contend that arbitration is inappropriate because the contract is void ab initio and the arbitration provision is unconscionable. We affirm.
¶2 In reviewing the District Court’s order compelling arbitration, we consider the following issues on appeal:
¶3 (1) When a contract containing an arbitration clause is challenged in its entirety, who is the appropriate adjudicator, an arbitrator or the district court?
¶4…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Southland Corp. v. KeatingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. CardegnaSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Steer, Inc. v. Department of RevenueMontana Supreme Court · 1990
- Iwen v. U.S. West DirectMontana Supreme Court · 1999
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Méndez-Acevedo v. Nieves RiveraSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 2010
- Kortum-Managhan v. HERBERGERS NBGLMontana Supreme Court · 2009
- Wells Fargo Bank v. TalmageMontana Supreme Court · 2007
- C. R. Klewin Northeast, LLC v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Thompson v. Lithia Chrysler Jeep DodgeMontana Supreme Court · 2008
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.