{"id":5270,"date":"2012-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2012-02-17T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/institutionalinvestorsecuritiesblog.blawgcloud.com\/2012\/02\/us_supreme_court_once_again_up"},"modified":"2022-04-22T10:58:42","modified_gmt":"2022-04-22T15:58:42","slug":"us-supreme-court-once-again-up","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/us-supreme-court-once-again-up\/","title":{"rendered":"US Supreme Court Once Again Upholds Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown<\/em>, the US Supreme Court has issued a ruling holding that federal and state courts have to follow the Federal Arbitration Act and support any arbitration agreement that is covered under the statute. The Court said that the FAA pre-empts a state law that doesn\u2019t allow the enforcement of this type of agreement, which requires that personal injury and wrongful claims against nursing homes be resolved outside of court. By holding, the Supreme Court was reaffirming its holding in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion <\/em>that FAA displaces conflicting rule when state law doesn\u2019t allow the arbitration of a certain kind of claim.<\/p>\n

In this latest ruling, the Court examined three nursing home negligence lawsuits filed by the relatives of patients that died at assisted living facilities. Each family had a signed agreement noting that any disputes, except for those regarding non-payment, would be dealt with via arbitration. Although the trial court rejected the plaintiffs\u2019 claims because of the arbitration agreements, the West Virginia Supreme Court decided to reverse the court\u2019s ruling, holding that public policy of the state prevented a pre-occurrence arbitration agreement in an admission contract for a nursing home that mandated that a negligence claim over wrongful death or personal injury be resolved through arbitration.<\/p>\n

By issuing this decision the state\u2019s Supreme Court was rejecting the way the US Supreme Court interpreted the FAA on the grounds that Congress would not have meant for the Act to be applicable to civil claims of injury or death that are tangentially connected to a contract\u2014especially when needed service is a factor.<\/p>\n

The US Supreme Court, however, reversed that decision, staying with its own interpretation of the FAA being controlling and a lower court not being able to ignore precedent. The Court sent the case back to state court where inquiry into whether the provision allowing only for arbitration can\u2019t be enforced under state common law principals not specifically addressing arbitration and therefore the FAA wouldn\u2019t pre-empt.<\/p>\n

At Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP<\/a>, our stockbroker fraud law firm <\/a>represents individual and institutional investors with securities fraud <\/a>claims and lawsuits. We have helped thousands of investors recoup their losses via arbitration and through the courts.<\/p>\n

With securities fraud, the majority of claims have to be resolved through arbitration. One reason for this is that most investors that sign up for accounts through brokerage firms almost always end up agreeing to binding arbitration clauses.<\/p>\n

Read the Supreme Court’s ruling in Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown<\/em><\/a> (PDF)<\/p>\n

More Blog Posts:<\/strong><\/p>\n

SEC and SIPC Go to Court to Over Whether SIPA Protects Stanford Ponzi Fraud Investors<\/a>, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 6, 2012<\/p>\n

Continue Reading \u203a<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown, the US Supreme Court has issued a ruling holding that federal and state courts have to follow the Federal Arbitration Act and support any arbitration agreement that is covered under the statute. The Court said that the FAA pre-empts a state law that doesn\u2019t allow the enforcement […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3798],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5270","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-arbitration"],"yoast_head":"\nUS Supreme Court Once Again Upholds Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements — Investor Lawyers Blog — February 17, 2012<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown, the US Supreme Court has issued a ruling holding that federal and state courts have to follow the Federal — February 17, 2012\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/us-supreme-court-once-again-up\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"US Supreme Court Once Again Upholds Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements — Investor Lawyers Blog — February 17, 2012\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"In Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown, the US Supreme Court has issued a ruling holding that federal and state courts have to follow the Federal — February 17, 2012\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"US Supreme Court Once Again Upholds Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements — Investor Lawyers Blog — February 17, 2012","description":"In Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown, the US Supreme Court has issued a ruling holding that federal and state courts have to follow the Federal — February 17, 2012","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/us-supreme-court-once-again-up\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"US Supreme Court Once Again Upholds Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements — Investor Lawyers Blog — February 17, 2012","twitter_description":"In Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown, the US Supreme Court has issued a ruling holding that federal and state courts have to follow the Federal — February 17, 2012","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/us-supreme-court-once-again-up\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/us-supreme-court-once-again-up\/"},"author":{"name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"headline":"US Supreme Court Once Again Upholds Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements","datePublished":"2012-02-17T06:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-04-22T15:58:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/us-supreme-court-once-again-up\/"},"wordCount":518,"articleSection":["Arbitration"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/us-supreme-court-once-again-up\/","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/us-supreme-court-once-again-up\/","name":"US Supreme Court Once Again Upholds Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements — Investor Lawyers Blog — February 17, 2012","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2012-02-17T06:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-04-22T15:58:42+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"description":"In Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown, the US Supreme Court has issued a ruling holding that federal and state courts have to follow the Federal — February 17, 2012","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/us-supreme-court-once-again-up\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/us-supreme-court-once-again-up\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/us-supreme-court-once-again-up\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"US Supreme Court Once Again Upholds Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/","name":"Investor Lawyers Blog","description":"Published By Investment Fraud Attorneys \u2014 Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431","name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pedX9K-1n0","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5270","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5270"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5270\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26764,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5270\/revisions\/26764"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5270"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5270"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5270"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}