Kiemle & Hagood Company v. Mariam P. Daniels a/k/a Phoebe Daniels

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[W]ithin the context of this case, [an] e-mail communication, in and of itself, was not enough” to effect revocation.
• “an employer who takes a barebones approach to affording notice [of what claims are subject to arbitration] runs the risk that its efforts will fall short”
• “[While] email was a familiar format for many forms of intra-office communication, ... [the record] does not suggest that e-mail was a traditional means either for conveying contractually binding terms or for effectuating waivers of employees’ legal rights.”
• “Since section 16(a) clearly enumerates the types of orders covered by the FAA’s various jurisdictional shelters, we decline to treat that provision as a general mechanism permitting the immediate appeal of any order hostile to arbitration.”
• need to clearly communicate the mandatory nature of the arbitration agreement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).