Caplin Enterprises, Inc. v. Arrington
Mississippi Supreme Court
1DissentColeman, Justice
¶ 22. Applying the two-pronged inquiry for determining whether arbitration should be enforced, under the Court’s policy favoring arbitration, I would hold that the arbitration provisions in both contracts are valid and enforceable. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
¶ 23. The Court of Appeals held that the more extensive arbitration provision in the newer contract was sufficient and that arbitration should be enforced as to the twenty-four plaintiffs who signed that contract. Caplin Enters., Inc. v. Arrington, 2011-CA-01832-COA, 145 So.3d 675, 685-87, 2013 WL 1878879, **9-10 (¶¶ 41-42)…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. RandolphSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. CardegnaSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. CasarottoSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.