Legal Opinion
Hobbs v. Tamko Building Products, Inc.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Decided October 26, 2015No. SD 33529PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
' JEFFREY W. BATES, J.
Tamko ^Building Products, Inc. (Tamko), a manufacturer of roofing shingles, appeals from an order denying its motion to compel arbitration of disputes with plaintiffs Lee. Hobbs and the Jonesburg United Methodist Church (referred to individually as Hobbs and Jonesburg and collectively as Plaintiffs), who purchased Tamko’s shingles.1 Tamko contends the trial court erred in denying its motion to compel arbitration because, inter alia, the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement which was printed on the outside packaging of the shingle bundles. Because we *149disagree…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Dunn Industrial Group, Inc. v. City of Sugar CreekSupreme Court of Missouri · 2003
- ProCD, Inc. v. ZeidenbergCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
- Rich Hill and Enza Hill, on Behalf of a Class of Persons Similarly Situated v. Gateway 2000, Inc., and David PraisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
- Robert S. Eaton v. CMH Homes, Inc., and Southern Energy Homes, Inc., and Henry Concrete, LLCSupreme Court of Missouri · 2015
- Kunzie v. Jack-In-The-Box, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2010
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- American Family Mutual Insurance v. Tamko Building Products, Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 2016
- Dye v. Tamko Building Products, Inc.District Court, M.D. Florida · 2017
- In re BrieceMissouri Court of Appeals · 2018
- Melnick v. Tamko Building Products, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 2022
- Melnick v. Tamko Building Products, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 2022
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.