Showmethemoney Check Cashers, Inc. v. Williams (2000)
green
· 174 citation events
across 13 courts.
Showing the 21 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200120132026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
See Showmethemoney Check Cashers, Inc. v. Williams, 342 Ark. 112 , 27 S.W.3d 361, 367 (2000) (“Given the lack of mutuality to support the arbitration agreement, we hold the arbitration clause con *967 tained in the [contract] does not constitute a valid enforceable agreement to arbitrate .... ”).
“Given the lack of mutuality to support the arbitration agreement, we hold the arbitration clause con *967 tained in the [contract] does not constitute a valid enforceable agreement to arbitrate .... ”
See Showmethemoney Check Cashers, Inc. v. Williams, 27 S.W.3d 361, 367 (Ark. 2000) ("Given the lack of mutuality to support the arbitration agreement, we hold the arbitration clause contained in the [contract] does not constitute a valid enforceable agreement to arbitrate . . . .").
"Given the lack of mutuality to support the arbitration agreement, we hold the arbitration clause contained in the [contract] does not constitute a valid enforceable agreement to arbitrate . . . ."
That said, for decades Arkansas courts have scrutinized arbitration provisions for mutual obligations, at times requiring identical or at least symmetrical obligations. £.g,, Showmethemoney Check Cashers, Inc. v. Williams, 342 Ark. 112, 121 , 27 S.W.3d 361, 366-67 (2000); The Money Place, LLC v. Barnes, 349 Ark. ~3- 411, 415-18, 78 S.W.3d 714 , 717-19 (2002).
Showmethemoney Check Cashers, Inc. v. Williams, 342 Ark. 112, 119-20 , 27 S.W.3d 361, 366 (2000).
green
DIRECTV, Inc. v. Murray (2012)
Showmethemoney Check Cashers, Inc. v. Williams, 342 Ark. 112, 119 , 27 S.W.3d 361, 365-66 (2000).
green
Brown ex rel. Brown v. Genesis Healthcare Corp. (2012)
See also, Dumais v. American Golf Corp., 299 F.3d 1216, 1219 (10th Cir.2002) ("an arbitration agreement allowing one party the unfettered right to alter the arbitration agreement’s existence or its scope is illusory”); Floss v. Ryan’s Family Steak Houses, Inc., 211 F.3d 306, 315-16 (6th Cir.2000) (ability to choose nature of forum and alter arbitration agreement without notice or consent renders arbitration agreement illusory); Iberia Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless…
green
United States v. Consigli Construction Co. (2012)
Showmethemoney Check Cashiers, Inc. v. Williams, 342 Ark. 112 , 27 S.W.3d 361, 366-7 (2000) (invalidating an arbitration provision requiring customers to submit their disputes to arbitration but allowing check cashing entity to pursue collection against customers in court), superseded by statute as recognized in Southeastern Stud & Components, Inc. v. American Eagle Design Build Studios, LLC, 588 F.3d 963, 966 (8th Cir. 2009); Armendariz v. Found.
invalidating an arbitration provision requiring customers to submit their disputes to arbitration but allowing check cashing entity to pursue collection against customers in court
green
America's Choice, Inc. v. Bienvenu (2010)
App. 4 , 256 S.W.3d 551, 555 (Ark.Ct.App. 2007); see also Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Archer, 356 Ark. 136 , 147 S.W.3d 681, 684 (2004) (“[Mjutuality of contract means that an obligation must rest on each party to do or permit to be done something in consideration of the act or promise of the other.”); Showmethemoney Check Cashiers, *6 Inc. v. Williams, 342 Ark. 112 , 27 S.W.3d 361, 366 (2000).
green
America's Choice, Inc. v. Bienvenu (2010)
Ct. App. 2007); see also Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Archer, 147 S.W. 3d 681, 684 (Ark. 2004) (“[M]utuality of contract means that an obligation must rest on each party to do or permit to be done something in consideration of the act or promise of the other.”); Showmethemoney Check Cashers, Inc. v. Williams, 27 S.W. 3d 361, 366 (Ark. 2000).
green
Cordova v. World Finance Corp. of NM (2009)
Showmethemoney Check Cashers, Inc. v. Williams, 342 Ark. 112 , 27 S.W.3d 361, 367 (2000). {31} World Finance argues that this agreement does not meet the test of unconscionability because it is not one that “only someone out of his or her senses, or delusional, would enter into.” This colorful language, transplanted to the United States long ago from English courts, has occasionally been used to characterize an unconscionable contract as one “ ‘such as no man in his senses a…
green
Asbury Automotive Used Car Center, L.L.C. v. Brosh (2005)
Showmethemoney Check Cashers, Inc. v. Williams, 342 Ark. 112, 120 , 27 S.W.3d 361, 366 (2000).
green
Superior Federal Bank v. MacKey (2003)
Showmethemoney Check Cashers v. Williams, 342 Ark. 112, 120 , 27 S.W.3d 361, 366 (2000) (quoting Townsend v. Standard Indus., Inc., 235 Ark. 951 , 363 S.W.2d 535 (1962)).
quoting Townsend v. Standard Indus., Inc., 235 Ark. 951 , 363 S.W.2d 535 (1962)
green
Stewart v. Combs (2006)
See Showmethemoney Check Cashers, Inc. v. Williams, 342 Ark. 112 , 27 S.W.3d 361 (2000); See also Asbury Automotive Used Car Center, L.L.C. v. Brosh, 364 Ark. 386 , 220 S.W.3d 637 (2005).
green
State Ex Rel. Vincent v. Schneider (2006)
See also Showmethemoney Check Cashers, Inc. v. Williams, 342 Ark. 112 , 27 S.W.3d 361, 366-67 (2000) (agreement lacked mutuality of obligation where consumer was bound by arbitration in every aspect, yet company could “proceed immediately to court to collect amounts due it”); Taylor v. Butler, 142 S.W.3d 277, 286-87 (Tenn.2004) (contract held to be unconscionable and void because one party had to submit all claims to arbitration, but the other reserved a right to a judicial …
agreement lacked mutuality of obligation where consumer was bound by arbitration in every aspect, yet company could “proceed immediately to court to collect amounts due it”
green
ROBINSON NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC, D/B/A ROBINSON NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER; CENTRAL AR… (2019)
See Showmethemoney Check Cashers, Inc. v. Williams, 342 Ark. 112 , 119–20, 27 S.W.3d 361, 366 (2000).
green
Richard A. Berent v. CMH Homes, Inc. (2015)
It described the majority view as holding that an arbitration agreement in which the drafter of the agreement reserves the right to a judicial forum but limits the consumer to arbitration of his claims is “unconscionable and oppressive” because it is “one-sided and unreasonably favorable to the drafter.” Id. at 285-86 (quoting Iwen, 977 P.2d at 996); see also Showmethemoney Check Cashers, Inc. v. Williams, 342 Ark. 112 , 27 S.W.3d 361, 366 (2000); Williams v. Aetna Fin.
See Showmethemoney Check Cashers, Inc. v. Williams, 342 Ark. 112 , 27 S.W.3d 361 (2000).
green
Gruma Corp. v. Morrison (2010)
See, e.g., Showmethemoney Check Cashers, Inc. v. Williams, 342 Ark. 112 , 27 S.W.3d 361 (2000).
green
Tri-State Delta Chemicals, Inc. v. Crow (2001)
See, e.g., Showmethemoney Check Cashers, Inc. v. Williams, 342 Ark. 112 , 27 S.W.3d 361 (2000); Walton v. Lewis, 337 Ark. 45 , 987 S.W.2d 262 (1999).
green
E-Z Cash Advance, Inc. v. Harris (2001)
See Showmethemoney, 342 Ark. 112 , 27 S.W.3d 361 .
green
Richard A. Berent v. CMH Homes, Inc. (2015)
It described the majority view as holding that an arbitration agreement in which the drafter of the agreement reserves the right to a judicial forum but limits the consumer to arbitration of his claims is “unconscionable and oppressive” because it is “one-sided and unreasonably favorable to the drafter.” Id. at 285-86 (quoting Iwen, 977 P.2d at 996 ); see also Showmethemoney Check Cashers, Inc. v. Williams, 27 S.W.3d 361, 366 (Ark. 2000); Williams v. Aetna Fin.