Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Allied-Bruce Terminix Co. v. Dobson (1)
- Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. (1)
- Bridas Sociedad Anonima Petrolera Industrial Y Commercial v. International Standard Electric Corp (1)
- Burke County Public Schools Board of Education v. Shaver Partnership (1)
- Central Greyhound Lines v. Mealey (1)
-
- Complete Auto Transit v. Brady (1)
- DH Holmes Co. v. McNamara (1)
- Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1)
- FAA (1)
- Federal Arbitration Act (1)
- Freeman v. Hewit (1)
- GAF Corp. v. Werner (1)
- Garrity v. Lyle Stuart (1)
- Goldberg v. Sweet (1)
- Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton (1)
- Metro Industrial Painting Corp. v. Terminal Construction Co. (1)
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth (1)
- Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Jefferson Lines (1)
- Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1)
- Perry v. Thomas (1)
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Co. (1)
- Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co. (1)
- Snyder v. Smith (1)
- Southland Corp. v. Keating (1)
- Spector Motor Service v. O'Connor (1)
- Volt Information Sciences v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University (1)
- Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
The United States Supreme Court's Expansive Approach To The Federal Arbitration Act: A Look At The Past, Present, And Future Of Section 2, Preston Douglas Wigner
The United States Supreme Court's Expansive Approach To The Federal Arbitration Act: A Look At The Past, Present, And Future Of Section 2, Preston Douglas Wigner
University of Richmond Law Review
The Federal Arbitration Act ["FAA"] was enacted in 1925 to ensure the validity and enforcement of arbitration agreements in contracts involving maritime transactions or interstate commerce. Intending the Act to be a simple method by which an opportunity would be given to enforce written arbitration agreements, Congress enacted what has become a confusing and controversial statute. Because of the absence of an in-depth discussion regarding the scope and applicability of the Act, Congress placed unintended burdens upon the courts to decipher congressional intent. Of particular concern to the courts was the authority by which Congress enacted the FAA.
Form V. Substance: The Supreme Court Retreats Into Its Formalistic Shell In Oklahoma Tax Commission V. Jefferson Lines, Jason P. Livingston
Form V. Substance: The Supreme Court Retreats Into Its Formalistic Shell In Oklahoma Tax Commission V. Jefferson Lines, Jason P. Livingston
University of Richmond Law Review
The Constitution expressly authorizes Congress to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States." However, it says nothing about the protection of interstate commerce absent any affirmative action by Congress. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized implicit in the language of the Commerce Clause "a further, negative command, known as the dormant Commerce Clause, prohibiting certain state taxation even when Congress has failed to legislate on the subject." In finding that states may constitutionally tax the local portion of interstate business transactions, the Court has held that "[it was not the purpose of the Commerce Clause to relieve …