Legal Opinion
Bishop v. We Care Hair Development Corp.
Appellate Court of Illinois
Decided September 29, 2000No. 1-00-0528PublishedCited by 71 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Greiman
A number of individuals, hereinafter franchisees, filed a complaint against franchisor We Care Hair Development Corporation (We Care Hair). We Care Hair and its affiliates filed motions to compel the franchisees to arbitrate their claims and to stay the proceedings pending arbitration. The trial court granted the motions as to all franchisees except Michael Castleman. The remaining franchisees appealed, arguing that (1) We Care Hair waived its right to compel them to arbitrate; and (2) the arbitration clauses are unconscionable, illusory, and violate public policy. Defendants also appealed,…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- 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
- Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. CasarottoSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by71 opinions
- Continental Casualty Company, an Illinois Insurance Company v. American National Insurance Company, a Texas Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2005
- Hanover Insurance Company v. Northern Building CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2014
- Village of South Elgin v. Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2004
- Ervin v. Nokia, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2004
- Dubey v. Public Storage, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2009
66 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.