Jurisprudence Commons^™

Reframing The Dilemma Of Contractually Expanded Judicial Review: Arbitral Appeal Vs. Vacatur , Eric Van Ginkel

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") of 1925 was created to ensure enforceability of agreements to arbitrate. The FAA is the centerpiece of the federal arbitration policy as construed by the Supreme Court. Section 10(a) FAA enumerates grounds on which an arbitral award can be set aside. The central issue discussed herein is whether parties can agree by contract to allow one of the parties to initiate review of the arbitral award by a court that would otherwise have jurisdiction over those parties, or whether the court's powers are somehow limited to the grounds for vacatur enumerated in Section 10(a) FAA. …

Georgia's New Evidence Code - An Overview, Paul S. Milich

Georgia State University Law Review

On May 3, 2011, Governor Nathan Deal signed into law House Bill 24 (HB 24) bringing a new set of evidence rules to the State of Georgia.

The new rules went into effect on January 1, 2013. The author of this article was the Reporter for the State Bar Evidence Study Committee when new rules were first proposed back in the mid-1980s, and again throughout the recent, successful effort to reform the rules.

Part I of this article will give a brief history of the twenty-six-year effort to bring new evidence rules to Georgia. Part II will provide a structural …

Sailing Around Erie: The Emergence Of A Federal General Common Law Of Arbitration , Kenneth F. Dunham

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This paper traces the history of American arbitration from the common law to the FAA. It discusses the FAA as a procedural act prior to Southland v. Keating and as a substantive law act following Southland. It discusses the Erie doctrine as applicable to federal courts and state law preemption. The article concludes that Southland by-passed Erie using the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause to create a federal common law of arbitration.

Unraveling The Mystery Of Wilko V. Swan: American Arbitration Vacatur Law And The Accidental Demise Of Party Autonomy , James M. Gaitis

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article begins with a brief description of what the Wilko Court said with respect to the vacatur of arbitral awards and how federal and state appellate courts have construed that language. Traditional American arbitration vacatur law, including but not limited to the cases relied upon by the Wilko Court, are then reviewed in depth such that the Wilko decision and the Wilko Court's choice of language may be placed in context and fully examined. The intent and proper operation of the FAA are then discussed based on both the legislative history of the FAA and other authorities that consistently …

A Reflection On American Justice At A Crossroads: A Public And Private Crisis, Maureen A. Weston

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

In April, 2010, a prominent group of judges, attorneys, academics, private dispute resolution professionals, and policymakers gathered to reflect upon the current state and future of the American justice system. A symposium entitled American Justice at a Crossroads: A Public and Private Crisis was held at Pepperdine University School of Law under the joint sponsorship of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, the Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, and the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR Institute). This special symposium edition of the Journal is comprised of select papers and speeches presented at that event and provide thoughtful …

American Justice At A Crossroads: Remarks Of Thomas J. Stipanowich, Thomas J. Stipanowich

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

In April, 2010, a prominent group of judges, attorneys, academics, private dispute resolution professionals, and policymakers gathered to reflect upon the current state and future of the American justice system. A symposium entitled American Justice at a Crossroads: A Public and Private Crisis was held at Pepperdine University School of Law under the joint sponsorship of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, the Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, and the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR Institute). This special symposium edition of the Journal is comprised of select papers and speeches presented at that event and provide thoughtful …

American Justice At A Crossroads: Remarks Of Kathleen Bryan, Kathleen Bryan

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

In April, 2010, a prominent group of judges, attorneys, academics, private dispute resolution professionals, and policymakers gathered to reflect upon the current state and future of the American justice system. A symposium entitled American Justice at a Crossroads: A Public and Private Crisis was held at Pepperdine University School of Law under the joint sponsorship of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, the Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, and the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR Institute). This special symposium edition of the Journal is comprised of select papers and speeches presented at that event and provide thoughtful …

American Justice At A Crossroads: Opening Remarks, Kenneth Starr

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

In April, 2010, a prominent group of judges, attorneys, academics, private dispute resolution professionals, and policymakers gathered to reflect upon the current state and future of the American justice system. A symposium entitled American Justice at a Crossroads: A Public and Private Crisis was held at Pepperdine University School of Law under the joint sponsorship of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, the Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, and the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR Institute). This special symposium edition of the Journal is comprised of select papers and speeches presented at that event and provide thoughtful …

An Unnecessary Consternation: An Analysis Of The Future Of Eu Arbitration In The Wake Of The West Tankers Decision, Mark G. Materna

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article proposes that, despite the West Tankers decision, parties are still not free to breach the terms of an arbitration agreement. On the contrary, there has been a strong trend by English courts to find ways of preventing parties from breaching such agreements. In short, this article serves to quell the panic and elucidate that the West Tankers decision is not a nail in the coffin, but rather a mechanism to reiterate European courts' dedication to ensuring that arbitration provisions remain a potent force against economic infidelity. Part II of this article will provide a brief background of anti-suit …

Waiving Rights Goodbye: Class Action Waivers In Arbitration Agreements After Stolt-Nielsen V. Animalfeeds International , Diana M. Link, Richard A. Bales

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article first argues that to determine the enforceability of a class action waiver, courts should take a "totality of the circumstances" approach rather than adopting a bright-line rule. A set of defined factors that also allows courts to consider real-world issues facing litigants will provide a substantial framework for courts to interpret this area of the law and will lead to more consistent and well-reasoned outcomes in the future. These factors include: the probable size of each class member's individual recovery, the potential for retaliation against class members, the awareness of potential class members that their rights have been …

The Eleventh Annual Albert A. Destefano Lecture On Corporate, Securities & Financial Law At The Fordham Corporate Law Center: Are Federal Judges Competent? Dilettantes In An Age Of Economic Expertise, The Honorable Jed Rakoff

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

The title of my little talk here tonight is “Are

Federal Judges Competent?” This naturally raises the question of whether I am competent to answer that question. I put this question to myself, and, after careful consideration of both sides of the argument, concluded that I am competent to determine whether I am competent. As H. L. Mencken once said, “A judge is a law student who grades his own exams.”

A Judicial Retrospective: Significant Decisions By The Arkansas Supreme Court From 1991 Through 2011, Robert L. Brown

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

In 2008, a study issued by the University of Chicago ranked the Arkansas Supreme Court as the second best state supreme court in the nation, based on the justices' productivity in issuing opinions, quality of opinions, and independence from partisan pressures. The last two decades have seen the Arkansas Supreme Court issue a multitude of opinions considering separation of powers, public education, prior restraint of the press, expanded rights under the Arkansas Constitution, class actions and tort reform.

This article highlights many of the most significant opinions from the last two decades and comments on their impact in Arkansas and …

No Justice In Utah's Justice Courts: Constitutional Issues, Systemic Problems, And The Failure To Protect Defendants In Utah's Infamous Local Courts, Samuel P. Newton, Teresa L. Welch, Neal G. Hamilton

Utah OnLaw: The Utah Law Review Online Supplement

Utah’s justice of the peace courts look and feel exactly like district courts, yet they lack the benefits and protections afforded to citizens charged with more serious offenses. Utah should strongly consider abolishing its justice courts in order to integrate them into a statewide system of justice that would “keep the peace” for all of the state’s citizens. If Utah does not abolish its justice courts, then it should implement the procedures and reforms outlined in this Article. Utah continues to have an opportunity to provide meaningful, and constitutional, justice administered at its local level. Once these reforms were implemented, …

On Locating The Rights Of Lost, 45 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1051 (2012), Ricardo A. Sunga Iii

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Ideological Divide: Conflict And The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decision , Emily Grant, Scott A. Hendrickson, Michael S. Lynch

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article bridges a gap in existing literature by evaluating, from an empirical perspective, the impact of conflict among the lower courts on the Supreme Court’s decision to grant or deny a petition for a writ of certiorari. Specifically, this Article looks at the political ideology of the lower courts involved in a split of authority on federal law and compares those positions to the political ideology of the Supreme Court itself. This Article concludes that the ideological content of lower court opinions in a conflict case impacts the Supreme Court’s certiorari decisions in a statistically significant way, and thus …

New Paths For The Court: Protections Afforded Juveniles Under Miranda; Effective Assistance Of Counsel; And Habeas Corpus Decisions Of The Supreme Court’S 2010/2011 Term, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.