Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. v. William Hamilton Smythe, III

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that in construing court orders, we will give effect “to that which is clearly implied, as well as to that which is expressly stated”
• holding, in the context of an arbitration action, “when construing orders and judgments, effect must be given to that which is clearly implied, as well as to that which is expressly stated”
• describing arbitration agreements in private contracts as “now favored in Tennessee both by statute and existing caselaw”
• describing arbitration agreements in private contracts as “now favored in Tennessee both by statute and existing caselaw”
• observing “Most courts that have addressed this issue have held that the Federal Arbitration Act’s appeal provisions do not preempt state appeal provisions consistent with the Uniform Arbitration Act”
• declining to “elevate form over substance” when it deprives a party of appellate review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).