It is fairly easy to tell when Supreme Court justices are annoyed that courts are resisting clear legal precepts announced in earlier cases. In some instances, the court will grant certiorari, and summarily reverse and remand with an instruction “in light of” the earlier precedent. In KindredNursing Centers L.P. v. Clark, 137 S. Ct. 1421 (May 15, 2017), the court took a more unforgiving tone when reversing the Kentucky Supreme Court’s effort to establish a limitation on arbitration contracts in nursing home agreements. The court’s “we really mean it” tone must be taken to heart in New Jersey.
In Kindred, the arbitration contracts were signed by relatives granted standard, broad powers of attorney to conduct “legal proceedings” and enter into contracts. The Kentucky Supreme Court found those powers of attorney lacked sufficiently “specific” authorization to enter into arbitration agreements, and, hence, the arbitration agreements were not valid. In its view, the “divine God-given right” to a jury trial enshrined in the Kentucky Constitution could be relinquished only by a “clearly expressed” waiver.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
