Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Reframing The Dilemma Of Contractually Expanded Judicial Review: Arbitral Appeal Vs. Vacatur , Eric Van Ginkel
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. …
Contracting Around Ruaa: Default Rules, Mandatory Rules, And Judicial Review Of Arbitral Awards, Christopher R. Drahozal
Contracting Around Ruaa: Default Rules, Mandatory Rules, And Judicial Review Of Arbitral Awards, Christopher R. Drahozal
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal
By specifying that its provisions generally are default rules and listing particular exceptions, the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (“RUAA”) provides much needed certainty and avoids unnecessary litigation, at least compared to the Federal Arbitration Act, which does not always identify which of its provisions are default rules. In one important respect, however, RUAA jettisons that valuable certainty. The RUAA drafters left open (or at least sought to leave open) the question whether parties can contract to expand the grounds for judicial review of arbitration awards beyond those set out in the statute. In other words, the drafters purported not to …
Mapping Proportionality Review: Still A "Road To Nowhere", Rachel A. Van Cleave
Mapping Proportionality Review: Still A "Road To Nowhere", Rachel A. Van Cleave
Publications
This article examines how a majority of the Supreme Court went out of its way to vacate a punitive damages award in Philip Morris and further reinforced the inconsistency with which it applies the principle of proportionality. When it comes to punitive damages awards, a majority of Justices continue to convey distrust of juries and of trial and appellate court judges who review these awards. However, when it comes to terms of imprisonment, the Court has eschewed substantive review under the Eighth Amendment while insisting that the Sixth Amendment requires that all facts supporting an increase in a sentence be …
Las Paradojas De La Democracia Deliberativa / The Paradoxes Of Deliberative Democracy, Andres Palacios Lleras
Las Paradojas De La Democracia Deliberativa / The Paradoxes Of Deliberative Democracy, Andres Palacios Lleras
Andrés Palacios Lleras
Este artículo argumenta por qué la teoría de la democracia deliberativa es problemática y paradójica, y por lo tanto inadecuada para desarrollar las instituciones democráticas contemporáneas, o para reemplazarlas por otras. Es una teoría problemática porque parte de una postura epistemológica difícilmente sostenible. Es paradójica porque a pesar de ser presentada como incluyente a nivel social, la idea de deliberación que presenta y considera como deseable, es demasiado exigente como para ser realizada por toda clase de personas; y es de hecho, elitista en este aspecto. Pero también porque señala que las instancias que están mejor diseñadas para tomar decisiones …
"Death Is Different" - Is Money Different? Criminal Punishments, Forfeitures, And Punitive Damages - Shifting Constitutional Paradigms For Assessing Proportionality, Rachel A. Van Cleave
"Death Is Different" - Is Money Different? Criminal Punishments, Forfeitures, And Punitive Damages - Shifting Constitutional Paradigms For Assessing Proportionality, Rachel A. Van Cleave
Publications
Part I of this Article reviews the case law regarding judicial review of both terms of imprisonment and imposition of the death penalty. In this section, I argue for consistency within this area of the law. Some jurisprudence suggests that, because "death is different," proportionality review is appropriate only in the death penalty context, and is either not required or only applies in an extremely narrow example, such as life imprisonment for a parking ticket. Part II examines Supreme Court precedent that analyzes the question of proportionality of forfeitures and punitive damages awards. In the context of forfeitures, the debate …
The First Amendment, Burt Neuborne
Surrogate Parenting After Baby M: The Ball Moves To The Legislature’S Court, John R. Dunne, Gregory V. Serio
Surrogate Parenting After Baby M: The Ball Moves To The Legislature’S Court, John R. Dunne, Gregory V. Serio
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.