Pre-Paid Legal Serv., Inc., et al. v. Anderson, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-01293-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-12-2005 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: Affirmed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Arbitration agreement Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Easley, Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Cobb, P.J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-03-2003 Appealed from: Holmes County Circuit Court Judge: Jannie M. Lewis Disposition: Granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and for declaratory judgment finding that the plaintiffs had no obligation to arbitrate their disputes with the defendants. Case Number: 2002-214 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc., Harland C. Stonecipher, Brooks Werkheiser, Arnold D. Dyre and Dyre Law Firm, PLLC |
RICHARD L. JONES, ROBERT L. GIBBS, ANNE C. SANDERS, JOHN B. CLARK, BRANDI N. SMITH, SHANDA L. LEWIS |
||
| Appellee: | Claude Anderson, Jr., et al. | J. BRAD PIGOTT, J. DOUGLAS MINOR, BARRY W. GILMER |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contract - Arbitration agreement |
| Summary of the Facts: | Claude Anderson, Jr., and 86 other plaintiffs commenced an action against Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc., Harlan C. Stonecipher, Brooks Werkheiser, Dyre Law Firm, PLLC, and Arnold D. Dyre, claiming that Pre-Paid used deceptive marketing practices to lure them into signing a contract for legal services that was grossly deficient in comparison to the services they were told that they would receive. The plaintiffs sought a partial summary judgment and a declaratory judgment that they were under no obligation to arbitrate any of these claims against the defendants. The court granted the motions, and the defendants appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | This exact arbitration clause has been considered on four different occasions. In each instance, the Supreme Court has held that the contract entered into by the plaintiffs did not have a valid, binding arbitration agreement. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
