- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Entertainment and Media Litigation
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Fiduciary Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
July 22, 2024Seven Robins Kaplan Attorneys Named to Minnesota Lawyer’s Power 30: Personal Injury List
-
July 18, 2024Emily Niles Named to Law360’s Top Attorneys Under 40
-
July 16, 2024David Martinez Named To 2024 Leaders of Influence: Litigators & Trial Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal
-
August 6, 2024Identifying Opportunities: Affirmative Recovery Strategies
-
August 15, 2024Annual Robins Kaplan MAJ Welcome Reception
-
October 20, 2024License Agreement Disputes:
-
July 24, 2024Navigating Copyright Act Section 117 in Software Licensing and Litigation
-
Second QuarterGENERICally Speaking: A Hatch-Waxman Litigation Bulletin
-
July 15, 2024Making The Whole Truth Public
-
September 16, 2022Uber Company Systems Compromised by Widespread Cyber Hack
-
September 15, 2022US Averts Rail Workers Strike With Last-Minute Tentative Deal
-
September 14, 2022Hotter-Than-Expected August Inflation Prompts Massive Wall Street Selloff
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
Silence Does Not Give Consent
Fall 2010
© Copyright 2010. All rights reserved.
On April 27, 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that arbitrators could not impose class arbitration where the parties' agreement didn't explicitly provide for it. The case represents a rebuke of class arbitration where parties never intended it, but leaves some openings for collective action by plaintiffs, even when not explicitly agreed to, depending on the jurisdiction governing the contract and standard practice within the industry.
The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.
Related Professionals
Adam Welle
Attorney
Related Publications
Related News
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.