Rose v. Nolen

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the arbitration agreement was not illusory “simply because [the defendant] had the unilateral right to modify the agreement”
• finding that an “arbitration provision was not invalid as illusory simply because [defendant] had the unilateral right to modify the agreement”
• discussing that mutual promises to arbitrate are sufficient consideration for an arbitration agreement
• enforcing arbitration clause in terms presented to plaintiff during online registration after purchase from third party
• “Thus, the analysis of whether a unilateral right to modify an arbitration agreement renders that agreement illusory and unenforceable turns on reasonableness and fair notice.”
• “If no objections are made . . . , a district court need review that aspect of a report [and] recommendation only for clear error.” (internal quotation and citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).