The case was against a hospital and doctor (defendants) plaintif won the case.
Basically it was ruled that the (then) common practice of placing wording that forced the waiver of the right to redress grievances in a court of law was illegal. (in this case the prohibition from sueing a doctor or hospital for malpractice, even if it was willful.
Banks universally have this clause in their "agreements"
I need to have this precendent so that I can move forward in court.
Thanks in advance
rickinnocal
It must be a State court ruling, because there's no such Federal precedent.
In most States, binding arbitration is not only legal, but promoted by the government.
In California, as a fairly typical example, the latest law is "Viola v. California Department of Managed Health Care", which established that an insurer had the right to require potential clients to sign a binding arbitration clause if they wanted coverage. A link to the court of appeals ruling is below.
Richard
Tmess2
I would need to know what state it is in.
You might be out of luck. If you are suing on negligence, arbitration agreements might be invalid as against public policy. If you are suing on contract, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that requirements of arbitration are valid under federal law.
Orignal From: What court case was this? Precedent set & ruled against waiving constitutional rights as pre-requisite?
Post a Comment