Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- "hear and determine" power (1)
- Arbitration & award -- United States (1)
- Arbitration agreements (1)
- Arbitration law (1)
- Article III (1)
-
- Authority (1)
- Autonomy (Political science) (1)
- Autonomy thesis (1)
- Constitutional separation-of-powers (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Discovery (Law) -- United States (1)
- Discovery Sanctions (1)
- Discovery costs (Law) (1)
- Executive Offices (1)
- Executive power -- United States (1)
- FAA (1)
- Federal Arbitration Act (1)
- Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2000 (1)
- Federal Magistrates Act of 1968 (1)
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 (1)
- Freedom of contract (1)
- Government agencies -- United States -- Rules & practice (1)
- Judicial power -- United States (1)
- Judicial review -- United States (1)
- Justiciability (1)
- Legislative Bodies (1)
- Liberty (1)
- Locus standi (Constitutional law) (1)
- Magistrate Judges (1)
- Negative liberty (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Does Rigorously Enforcing Arbitration Agreements Promote “Autonomy”?, Hiro N. Aragaki
Does Rigorously Enforcing Arbitration Agreements Promote “Autonomy”?, Hiro N. Aragaki
Indiana Law Journal
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has helped transform arbitration law into a radical private-ordering regime in which freedom of contract has come to eclipse public regulation. Arbitration jurisprudence justifies this transformation in part on a profound and longstanding commitment to the ideal of individual autonomy, understood as the freedom—lacking in litigation—to select a disputing process best suited to one’s needs.
In this Article, I question the cogency of this justification. I argue, first, that autonomy has had different and sometimes conflicting meanings even within arbitration jurisprudence. Second, depending on the meaning one ascribes to autonomy, it is at …
Standing For (And Up To) Separation Of Powers, Kent H. Barnett
Standing For (And Up To) Separation Of Powers, Kent H. Barnett
Indiana Law Journal
The U.S. Constitution requires federal agencies to comply with separation-of-powers (or structural) safeguards, such as by obtaining valid appointments, exercising certain limited powers, and being sufficiently subject to the President’s control. Who can best protect these safeguards? A growing number of scholars would allow only the political branches—Congress and the President—to defend them. These scholars would limit or end judicial review because private judicial challenges are aberrant to justiciability doctrine and lead courts to meddle in minor matters that rarely affect regulatory outcomes.
This Article defends the right of private parties to assert justiciable structural causes of action, arguing that …
A Referee Without A Whistle: Magistrate Judges And Discovery Sanctions In The Seventh Circuit, Landyn Wm. Rookard
A Referee Without A Whistle: Magistrate Judges And Discovery Sanctions In The Seventh Circuit, Landyn Wm. Rookard
Indiana Law Journal
This Note ultimately argues that, if the Seventh Circuit is not willing to reverse its holdings in Alpern v. Lieb and Retired Chicago Police Ass'n v. City of Chicago in light of recent developments, Congress should again clarify its intent. In the face of the crushing "costs of discovery [that] threaten to exceed the amount at issue in all but the largest cases," it is the Seventh Circuit's responsibility to employ all just and legal devices to comply with Congress's mandate "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding."