Defendant: GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP. Facts of the Case: Larketta Randolph financed a mobile home through Green Tree Financial. Her home retail installment contract and security agreement required that Randolph buy vendor’s single interest insurance, which protects the vendor from the costs of repossession if any default were to occur. The agreement also provided that if any disputes were to arise either under statutory law or case law that it would be resolved by binding arbitration. Identification of the Key Legal Issues: Plaintiff alleged that Green Tree violated the Truth in Lending Act, by failing to disclose as a finance charge the vendor’s single interest insurance requirement. Also she alleged that Green Tree Financial violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, by requiring her to arbitrate her statutory causes for action. Decision and Reasoning of the Court: Judge Ira DeMent dismissed the case with prejudice in the defendant’s favor and court ordered arbitration. U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the 11th Cir. 178 F.3d 1149 Appellant: Larketta RANDOLPH Appellee: GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP. Court’s Opinion and Reasoning: Opinion by Carnes, Circuit Judge. We conclude that the district court’s judgment was an appealable “final decision”. We also hold that the arbitration agreement in this case defeats the remedial purposes of the TILA and is unenforceable. Concurring Opinion: None Dissenting Opinion: None U.S. Supreme Ct. 121 S. Ct. 513 Petitioner: GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP. Respondent: Larketta RANDOLPH Judges: REHQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, Part II of which was unanimous and Parts I and II of which were joined by O’CONNER, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, J.J. GINSBURG, J., filed an opi... ... middle of paper ... ...cision? Why did the Court rule that way? The Supreme Court remanded the case to the 11th circuit for a closer consideration of the arbitral forum’s financial accessibility to the borrower. The agreement to arbitrate was not rendered unenforceable simply because the agreement said nothing about arbitration costs and thus allegedly failed to provide the borrower protection from potentially substantive costs of pursuing her federal statutory claims in the arbitral forum. Works Cited GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP.-ALABAMA et al. v. RANDOLPH: certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh circuit. (2009). Supreme Court Cases: The Twenty-first Century (2000 - Present), 1. 513 US 79, p. 373-387. LexisNexis. 2000 U.S. Lexis 8279. Accessed, 2.14.2014. WestlawNext. 121 S. Ct. 513. Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph. Accessed, 3.27.2014.
The court for this case found that the search and seizure of the stereo violated the fourth and fourteenth Amendments. The Decision was 6 votes for Hicks and 3 votes against.
VI. Opinion: Justice Fortas delivered the opinion of the Court. The Judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court is reversed and the matter remanded. Justices Black and White concurred with the Court’s opinion. Justice Harlan concurred in part and dissented in part; and Justice Stewart dissented based on his opinion that juvenile hearings are not the same as adversary proceedings.
"Schenck v. United States. Baer v. Same.." LII. Cornell University Law school, n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2014. .
The first article Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion is a court opinion from William J. Brennan about Gregory Lee. Johnson who burned an American flag in protest, and whether he should be criminally punished or not for doing so. Brennan believes Johnson should not be punished, but rather persuaded into thinking he was in the wrong
Under these circumstances, the court agreed that Summit had no reason to know or suspect that Kellar was working before her shift. Kellar’s wage payment claim under Indiana law was derivative of her FLSA claim, it failed for the same reasons. Thus, the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment on both claims in Summit’s favor.
Palmer, Elizabeth A. "The Court and Public Opinion." CQ Weekly 2 Dec. 2000. CQ Weekly. SAGE Publications. Web. 1 Mar. 2000. .
...eversed and remanded back to the trial courts. One drawback to the court systems that is evident in this case is the length of time required to reach the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decision occurred almost seven years after the trial started, only to be sent back to the trial process.
RBC Financial Group uses a customer relationship management (CRM) strategy that provides a variety of services for a variety of clients. The strategy allows for individual customers to trust RBC and develop a personal relationship with each and every client. One major factor that allows CRM to operate effectively is the use of technologies and analytics to help classify each client’s financial situation. These customer profitability-based techniques allowed RBC to categorize their clients into A, B, and C groups so that the sales teams could optimize their efforts in catering to these different clients. This strategy holds the following strengths: optimizing sales efforts to different customers, easily accessible electronic sales leads, centralized and standardized financial decisions, and building personalized and sustainable customer relationships. There are a few weaknesses to the system though including the complexity in predicting future positions of companies despite the use of analytics as well as the complexity in creating consistency when using these
Hobson, Charles F. The Great Chief Justice, John Marshall And the Rule Of Law. University Press Of Kansas: Wison Garey McWilliams & Lance Banning, 1996.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
The case involved several questions the Supreme Court had to answer. The first question was whether or not Marbury had a right to the commission. The Court decided that he did have the right because the appointment was issued while Adams was still in office and took effect as soon as it was signed. The next question was to determine if the law gave Marbury remedy. The Court found that the law did provide remedy for Marbury. Adams signed the appointment and Marshall sealed it thereby giving Marbury legal right to the office he was appointed to. Therefore, denying delivery of the appointment to him was a violation of his rights and the law provides him remedy. The third question was to determine whether the Supreme Court had the authority to review acts o...
Columbia Law Review, 104, 1-20. doi:10.2307/4099343. Reynolds, S. (2009). The 'Standard'. An interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The standard of review for both of the issues in this appeal is de novo. We explain below why that is so.
Heart of Atlanta v. U.S. and Katzenbach v. McClung. 2003. The Supreme Court Historical Society. 22 April 2003.
...States court of appeals for the tenth circuit. (2009). Supreme Court Cases: The Twenty-first Century (2000 - Present), 1-4. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.2-23-2011.https://login.cyrano.ucmo.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=19084840&site=ehost-live