Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Dannelly Enterprises, LLC v. Palm Beach Grading, Inc.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 29, 2016No. 1140504Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMoore, Chief Justice

I concur in the holding of the main opinion that the trial court’s order compelling arbitration of the underlying dispute is due to be reversed. However, I respectfully dissent from the remand instruction that' the trial court “conduct a jury trial to determine whether Dannelly [Enterprises, LLC (‘Dannelly’),] and [Palm Beach Grading, Inc. (‘PBG’),] entered into PBG’s standard subcontract agreement.” 200 So.3d at 1170. As I have written before, I believe that predispute arbitration agreements are unenforceable under the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. See American Bankers…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Selma Medical Center, Inc. v. FontenotSupreme Court of Alabama · 2001
  2. American Bankers Insurance Co. of Florida v. TellisSupreme Court of Alabama · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API