Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix
Arizona Supreme Court
173 Ariz. 148, 840 P.2d 1013 (1992)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Melinda Kay Broemmer (plaintiff) went to Abortion Services of Phoenix (ASP) (defendant) for a consultation about having an abortion. At the time, Broemmer, who was not experienced in commercial matters and only had a high school education, was under severe emotional distress due to her pregnancy. She signed a couple of documents at ASP, one of which was an arbitration clause, providing that any dispute arising between the parties would be settled by binding arbitration. Broemmer signed the document without knowing what arbitration was. Subsequently, Broemmer got the abortion and the procedure resulted in a punctured uterus. Broemmer filed a malpractice suit. The trial court granted summary judgment for ASP, finding that the court did not have jurisdiction on account of the arbitration clause. The court of appeals affirmed, finding that the contract was one of adhesion, but still enforceable. Broemmer appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moeller, J.)
Dissent (Martone, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
