Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

Courts Have The Final Say: Does The Doctrine Of Manifest Disregard Promote Lawful Arbitral Awards Or Disguise Unlawful Judicial Review, Lindsay Biesterfeld Jul 2006

Courts Have The Final Say: Does The Doctrine Of Manifest Disregard Promote Lawful Arbitral Awards Or Disguise Unlawful Judicial Review, Lindsay Biesterfeld

Journal of Dispute Resolution

In exchange for a speedy, economical dispute resolution process, parties that submit to binding arbitration assume the risk that an arbitrator might misapply the law. United States Supreme Court precedent and federal law favor agreements to arbitrate by limiting judicial review of arbitral awards and requiring courts to "rigorously enforce arbitration agreements." These judicial constraints support the arbitral goals of efficiency and finality by reducing the risk that arbitral awards will be vacated on appeal. To balance the risk that arbitrators may abuse this standard of review, courts have supplemented restricted judicial review with a doctrine that allows an arbitral ...


Whose Finding Is It Anyway: The Division Of Labor Between Courts And Arbitrators With Respect To Waiver, David Lefevre Jan 2006

Whose Finding Is It Anyway: The Division Of Labor Between Courts And Arbitrators With Respect To Waiver, David Lefevre

Journal of Dispute Resolution

Given the emphasis with which the Supreme Court has made clear its policy favoring arbitration, it is not surprising that some courts may have reacted by divesting themselves of a "gateway issue" long decided by courts. Traditionally, courts have determined whether a party has acted inconsistently with its right to arbitration, thereby waiving it, but a few courts found that the question is properly before an arbitrator. Recently, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Marie v. Allied Home Mortgage Corporation2 established a framework through which the federal circuits may begin to close the potential split of authority regarding waiver ...


Introduction To Vanishing Trial Symposium, John M. Lande Jan 2006

Introduction To Vanishing Trial Symposium, John M. Lande

Faculty Publications

This symposium shows that "vanishing trial" phenomena touch an extremely broad range of issues including transformations of society, courts, dispute resolution procedures, and even the nature of knowledge. These phenomena relate to decisions by litigants in particular cases, court systems, national policy, and international relations. This subject is too large and complex for any symposium to analyze fully, especially at this early stage of analysis. This symposium makes an important contribution to this study, with theories and evidence about the existence, nature, and extent of reductions in trials and similar proceedings. It elaborates a range of theories about possible causes ...


How Much Justice Can We Afford?: Defining The Courts' Roles And Deciding The Appropriate Number Of Trials, Settlement Signals, And Other Elements Needed To Administer Justice, John M. Lande Jan 2006

How Much Justice Can We Afford?: Defining The Courts' Roles And Deciding The Appropriate Number Of Trials, Settlement Signals, And Other Elements Needed To Administer Justice, John M. Lande

Faculty Publications

This article discusses how the U.S. court system can function optimally given declining trial rates and the limited resources available. The question of how much justice we can afford is a challenge that becomes more difficult as budgets fall behind the increasing demand for and cost of court services. Presumably most analysts would agree that courts should try cases when appropriate - and help litigants find just resolutions without trial when it is not needed. The courts' ability to provide trials in some cases is possible only if the vast majority of other cases are not tried.This article provides ...


Convicting The Innocent: Aberration Or Systemic Problem?, Rodney J. Uphoff Jan 2006

Convicting The Innocent: Aberration Or Systemic Problem?, Rodney J. Uphoff

Faculty Publications

In practice, the right to adequate defense counsel in the United States is disturbingly unequal. Only some American criminal defendants actually receive the effective assistance of counsel. Although some indigent defendants are afforded zealous, effective representation, many indigent defendants and almost all of the working poor are not. The quality of representation a defendant receives generally is a product of fortuity, of economic status, and of the jurisdiction in which he or she is charged. For many defendants, the assistance of counsel means little more than counsel's help in facilitating a guilty plea. With luck, money, and location primarily ...