Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
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 …
A Genesis Of Conflict: The Zero-Sum Mindset, Jonathan R. Cohen
A Genesis Of Conflict: The Zero-Sum Mindset, Jonathan R. Cohen
UF Law Faculty Publications
Parties in conflict often operate under the assumption that for one party to win, the other party must lose. This concept, known as the “zero-sum mindset,” can lead to undesirable results, both because it can make disputes harder to resolve and because people holding such beliefs are more likely to get into conflicts to begin with. Over the past several decades, legal educators specializing in dispute resolution have worked hard to challenge that mindset. This task is not simple, for framing conflict in zero-sum terms has very deep cultural roots tracing back at least to the Biblical stories in Genesis. …
Llcs And The Private Ordering Of Dispute Resolution, Peter Molk, Verity Winship
Llcs And The Private Ordering Of Dispute Resolution, Peter Molk, Verity Winship
UF Law Faculty Publications
An emerging question in U.S. business law is how the organizational documents of a business entity set the rules for resolving internal disputes. This practice is routine in commercial contracts, which may specify where or how disputes must be resolved. Recent use of litigation provisions in corporation charters and bylaws have sparked controversy, ultimately leading to legislative action to preserve shareholder suits from contractual waiver. Yet despite accounting for the majority of business organizations and sharing features with corporations, non-corporate business entities and their internal dispute resolution process have been largely ignored. How do these non-corporate entities set ex ante …