Williams v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting the argument that small-dollar claims require class proceedings because states “cannot require a procedure that is inconsistent with the FAA.”
• rejecting the argument that small-dollar claims require class proceedings because states \cannot require a procedure that is inconsistent with the FAA.\
• “saving clause permits agreements to arbitrate to be invalidated by generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability” (internal quotations omitted)
• rejecting consumers’ public policy concerns about small-dollar claims slipping through the legal system because states “cannot require a procedure that is inconsistent with the FAA, even if it is desirable for unrelated reasons”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).