Marsh v. First USA Bank, N.A.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the plaintiffs were contractually bound by a mailed arbitration amendment when they did not follow the amendment’s prescribed written opt-out procedure and continued to use their credit cards
• crediting testimony of bank’s vice president for operations about company’s-mass mailing process and quality assurance controls
• rejecting credit card holder’s pre-arbitration contention that the arbitration service-selector and defendant bank would select biased arbitrators to defeat their consumer claims as “merely illusory” concerns
• enforcing a valid arbitration provision because the record established, via depositions and affidavits, that the company had quality assurance controls to ensure that every customer received notice of the later-added arbitration provision
• enforcing a valid arbitration provision because the record established, via depositions and affidavits, that the company had quality assurance controls to ensure that every customer received notice of the later-added arbitration provision
• enforcing a unilateral arbitration amendment to a credit card agreement where an applicable state statute specifically authorized unilateral arbitration amendments to credit card -29- CANTEEN V. CHARLOTTE METRO CREDIT UNION Riggs, J., dissenting agreements

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).