Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Can The United States Be A Party To Binding Arbitration - The Constitutional Issues Re-Evaluated - Tenaska Washington Partners Ii V. The United States, Chatman Catherine
Can The United States Be A Party To Binding Arbitration - The Constitutional Issues Re-Evaluated - Tenaska Washington Partners Ii V. The United States, Chatman Catherine
Journal of Dispute Resolution
It has long been assumed that the Constitution prohibited the United States government from entering binding arbitration as a party. The Department of Justice recently re-examined the issue and concluded that there is no absolute constitutional bar to government participation in binding arbitration.' Tenaska is the first reported court decision to adopt the Department of Justice's new reasoning. The court in Tenaska Washington Partners II v. The United States held that a dispute between a private party and a governmental agency must be submitted to binding arbitration when the parties' voluntary agreement contains an arbitration clause.'
Context, Properties, And Constitutionality Of Nonconsensual Arbitration: A Study Of Four Systems, The, John R. Allison
Context, Properties, And Constitutionality Of Nonconsensual Arbitration: A Study Of Four Systems, The, John R. Allison
Journal of Dispute Resolution
The purpose of this article is to analyze the context, properties, and constitutionality of these instances of nonconsensual arbitration. Although FIFRA data arbitration and the constitutional challenges to which it has been subjected will receive the most extensive study, the other examples also will be explored in some detail. It is first necessary, however, to lay some groundwork. Each of the nonconsensual arbitration systems to be studied, including FIFRA data arbitration, draws the inspiration for its design and operation from contract-based commercial arbitration. To aid in the understanding of the former, Part II discusses the fundamental nature and legal framework …
Constitutionally Recognizing Court Mandated Arbitration: Paradise Found Or Problems Abound - Firelock Inc. V. District Court, Scott M. Badami
Constitutionally Recognizing Court Mandated Arbitration: Paradise Found Or Problems Abound - Firelock Inc. V. District Court, Scott M. Badami
Journal of Dispute Resolution
This Note will argue that notwithstanding any criticism of the court-annexed arbitration procedure, the Colorado Supreme Court is taking a leadership position in upholding and expanding the role for arbitration, by recognizing that this form of alternative dispute resolution is less expensive, saves judicial time, provides for confidentially, and most importantly, provides the parties with a sense of fairness in the outcome.
Constitutionality Of Mandatory Farmer-Lender Mediation: The Minnesota Plan - Laue V. Production Credit Association, The, Jeffrey L. Dawson
Constitutionality Of Mandatory Farmer-Lender Mediation: The Minnesota Plan - Laue V. Production Credit Association, The, Jeffrey L. Dawson
Journal of Dispute Resolution
In March of 1986, the Minnesota legislature adopted an omnibus farm bill. A principal part of this bill was the "Farmer-Lender Mediation Act" s (hereinafter Act). The Act requires mandatory mediation notice in the case of any debt foreclosure proceedings brought against farm debtors.8 The Act was scrutinized by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in a case of first impression in Laue v. Production Credit Association.
Will The Seventh Amendment Survive Adr?, Roger W. Kirst
Will The Seventh Amendment Survive Adr?, Roger W. Kirst
Journal of Dispute Resolution
The seventh amendment problem is not within the ADR procedures themselves, but rather in how ADR is integrated into the total system of formal dispute resolution. Proponents of ADR may not intend to destroy federal civil jury trial, but ADR could be a serious threat to the seventh amendment if alternative procedures supplant civil jury trial and leave the constitutional language as a hollow shell. On the other hand, substantial use of ADR would not necessarily threaten seventh amendment values if jury trial remains available; instead, ADR procedures in routine litigation might protect the role of the civil jury in …