Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Centrist Case Against Current (Conservative) Arbitration Law, Stephen J. Ware
The Centrist Case Against Current (Conservative) Arbitration Law, Stephen J. Ware
Florida Law Review
In The Politics of Arbitration Law and Centrist Proposals for Reform, I explained how issues surrounding consumer and other adhesive arbitration agreements became divisive along predictable political lines (progressives vs. conservatives) and proposed an intermediate (or centrist) position to resolve those issues. However, The Politics of Arbitration Law did not argue the case for my proposals. It left those arguments for this Article, which makes the case against current (conservative) arbitration law, and a third article, which will make the case against progressive proposals to reform arbitration law. In other words, this Article stands out from the many other articles …
Fake Arbitration: Why Florida's Nonbinding Arbitration Proceudre Is Not Arbitration Within The Scope Of The Federal Arbitration Act, Andrew Daeschsel
Fake Arbitration: Why Florida's Nonbinding Arbitration Proceudre Is Not Arbitration Within The Scope Of The Federal Arbitration Act, Andrew Daeschsel
Florida Law Review
Does the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) govern Florida’s nonbinding arbitration procedure? At present, this question is unresolved. As its name suggests, the FAA generally governs arbitration agreements. But the FAA does not define “arbitration,” and the U.S. Courts of Appeals have different standards for what constitutes arbitration under the FAA. This Note discusses those different standards and argues that the Eleventh Circuit provides the most logical test for determining whether a particular dispute resolution procedure is FAA arbitration. Finally, this Note argues that, under the Eleventh Circuit’s standard, Florida’s nonbinding arbitration procedure is not FAA arbitration.
Impact Preemption: A New Theory Of Federal Arbitration Preemption, Kristen M. Blankley
Impact Preemption: A New Theory Of Federal Arbitration Preemption, Kristen M. Blankley
Florida Law Review
The United States Supreme Court has expanded its arbitration preemption jurisprudence to unprecedented and unexplained bounds, ultimately creating a new type of preemption, herein coined “impact preemption.” As applied by the Court, the scope of impact preemption is broader than even field preemption. The future policy implications of impact preemption are significant. Impact preemption shifts the balance of regulatory power in the dual federal–state arbitration system toward the federal courts and away from state regulatory authorities, contrary to the language and legislative history of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In addition, impact preemption has the potential to undermine the stability …
Impact Preemption: A New Theory Of Federal Arbitration Preemption, Kristen M. Blankley
Impact Preemption: A New Theory Of Federal Arbitration Preemption, Kristen M. Blankley
Florida Law Review
The United States Supreme Court has expanded its arbitration preemption jurisprudence to unprecedented and unexplained bounds, ultimately creating a new type of preemption, herein coined “impact preemption.” As applied by the Court, the scope of impact preemption is broader than even field preemption. The future policy implications of impact preemption are significant. Impact preemption shifts the balance of regulatory power in the dual federal–state arbitration system toward the federal courts and away from state regulatory authorities, contrary to the language and legislative history of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In addition, impact preemption has the potential to undermine the stability …
Impact Preemption: A New Theory Of Federal Arbitration Preemption, Kristen M. Blankley
Impact Preemption: A New Theory Of Federal Arbitration Preemption, Kristen M. Blankley
Florida Law Review
The United States Supreme Court has expanded its arbitration preemption jurisprudence to unprecedented and unexplained bounds, ultimately creating a new type of preemption, herein coined “impact preemption.” As applied by the Court, the scope of impact preemption is broader than even field preemption. The future policy implications of impact preemption are significant. Impact preemption shifts the balance of regulatory power in the dual federal–state arbitration system toward the federal courts and away from state regulatory authorities, contrary to the language and legislative history of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In addition, impact preemption has the potential to undermine the stability …
Unbundling Procedure: Carve-Outs From Arbitration Clauses, Christopher R. Drahozal, Erin O'Hara O'Connor
Unbundling Procedure: Carve-Outs From Arbitration Clauses, Christopher R. Drahozal, Erin O'Hara O'Connor
Florida Law Review
A rich literature analyzes how parties choose between courts and arbitration. Within this literature, scholars traditionally assume that sophisticated parties make a single choice between courts and arbitration based on the bundle of dispute resolution services that seems most appealing ex ante. As with the literature on bundling generally, however, legal scholars are increasingly focusing their attention on the unbundling of court and arbitral procedures—that is, the ability of parties to contract for à la carte or customized dispute resolution procedures in court and arbitration. While such unbundling is common ex post, i.e., after a dispute arises, most …