October Term 2016 · Docket 16-32
Does Kentucky law require special rules for arbitration powers of attorney?
the sides that brought the case argue Kentucky applies stricter rules to arbitration powers of attorney than to general contracts.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Pincus stated Kentucky applies a more demanding rule for arbitration powers of attorney.
Justice Sotomayor questioned if the Wellner case aligns with neutral contract interpretation.
Justice Alito noted the context involves elderly care rather than simple billing disputes.
Mr. Salyer stated Kentucky is a common law state in power of attorney law.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 22-36 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 22-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 28-38 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 28-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 16-22 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 16-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 12-22 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 12-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 48-50 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 48-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 48-14 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 48-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 24-50 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 24-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 48-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 48-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-42 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-30 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 36-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 36-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 20-34 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 20-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 32-28 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 32-28
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether Kentucky law treats arbitration powers of attorney differently from general contract powers.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 24-50 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 24-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 22, 2017.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to apply standard contract interpretation rules to the power of attorney.
the opposing sides want the Court to apply Kentucky's stricter rules for arbitration powers of attorney.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 24-50 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 24-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue Kentucky uses a more demanding rule for arbitration than for general contracts.
the opposing sides argue Kentucky is a common law state without a uniform power of attorney act.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 24-50 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 24-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked if the Wellner case is closer to neutral contract interpretation.
Justice Alito asked if the context differs from recent arbitration cases involving bills.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 22-36 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 22-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 28-38 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 28-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 16-22 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 16-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 12-22 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 12-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 48-50 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 48-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 48-14 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 48-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 48-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 48-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-42 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-30 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 36-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 36-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 20-34 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 20-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 32-28 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 32-28
Why it matters
This dispute determines how courts interpret powers of attorney for arbitration in Kentucky.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 24-50 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 24-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 22-36 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 22-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 28-38 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 28-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 16-22 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 16-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 12-22 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 12-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 48-50 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 48-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 48-14 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 48-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 48-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 48-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-42 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-30 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 36-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 36-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 20-34 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 20-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 32-28 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 32-28
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 24-50 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 24-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 24-50 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 24-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.