# Ex Parte McNaughton

> Supreme Court of Alabama · August 28, 1998 · 728 So. 2d 592

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9937417

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex Parte Cindy L. McNaughton. (Re Cindy L. McNaughton v. United Healthcare Services, Inc.).
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** August 28, 1998
- **Citations:** 728 So. 2d 592; 1998 WL 544926
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lyons
- **Judges:** Almon, Cook, Lyons, See
- **Cited by:** 110 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9937417

## Opinion text

I write specially to state that I join in the main opinion without reservation. Upon reading Justice Almon moving dissent, I am compelled to observe that I can detect no sense of glee or smug satisfaction on the part of any member of the majority in the difficult task of applying the Federal Arbitration Act to cases pending in the courts of this state. I hasten to add that I do not read in the dissent any insinuation that the majority relishes the task of implementing the Federal Arbitration Act, but I wish to eliminate any doubt.
In his dissent, Justice Almon invokes the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as he passionately protests what he sees as injury to fundamental rights resulting from the application of the Federal Arbitration Act. I am reminded of the spirit in which I wrote a concurring opinion in Ex parte Dan Tucker Auto Sales, Inc. , 718 So.2d 33 (Ala. 1998), where I expressed an apparently divergent view as to the availability of the Tenth Amendment in the context of federal power derived from the Commerce Clause (Art. I, § 8), further discussed what I see as mixed signals in this area from the Alabama Constitution of 1901, and offered what I consider to be a defensible role for the doctrine of unconscionability. I do not believe this case presents such facts as would be essential for a finding of unconscionability.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9937417. Public record. Not legal advice.