Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Process Purity And Innovation In Dispute Resolution: A Response To Professors Stempel, Cole, And Drahozal, Richard C. Reuben
Process Purity And Innovation In Dispute Resolution: A Response To Professors Stempel, Cole, And Drahozal, Richard C. Reuben
Faculty Publications
This article uses a "process characteristics and values" approach to make the case against displacing arbitration finality with substantive judicial review. It responds to a trio of articles in a forthcoming Nevada Law Review symposium on whether and how the Federal Arbitration Act should be amended. In one article, Nevada Law Professor Jeffrey Stempel contends all arbitration awards should be subject to substantive judicial review similar to that of public trial courts. In a second article, Ohio State Professor Sarah Cole argues that substantive review should generally be permitted when the parties agree to it by contract, an issue now …
Consideration Of 'Contracting Culture' In Enforcing Arbitration Provisions, Amy J. Schmitz
Consideration Of 'Contracting Culture' In Enforcing Arbitration Provisions, Amy J. Schmitz
Faculty Publications
The Federal Arbitration Act mandates strict and uniform enforcement of standardized pre-dispute arbitration provisions. This may not be proper, however, in light of the importance of context with respect to these provisions. This Article therefore seeks to remind courts of the importance of exchange context by proposing a "contracting culture" continuum for enforcing these arbitration provisions that acknowledges the impacts of these provisions in a particular communal context. "Contracting culture" encompasses economic and non-economic relational factors that impact dispute resolution agreements, but go beyond common conceptions of "culture" focused on ethnicity, nationality, or religion. It also explores beyond the primary …
Judging Judges And Dispute Resolution Processes, John M. Lande
Judging Judges And Dispute Resolution Processes, John M. Lande
Faculty Publications
This article critiques Professor Chris Guthrie's lead symposium article entitled, "Misjudging." Guthrie's article makes two major arguments. The first is a descriptive, empirical argument that judges are prone to error because of three types of "blinders" and that people underestimate the amount of such judicial error. The second argument is prescriptive, recommending that, because of these judicial blinders, disputants should consider using non-judicial dispute resolution processes generally, and particularly facilitative mediation and arbitration.This article critiques both arguments. It notes that, although Guthrie presents evidence that judges do make the kinds of errors that he describes, his article does not address …