Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Arbitration (2)
- Binding (2)
- ADR (1)
- Adequate notice (1)
- Appeal (1)
-
- Article III (1)
- Common (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional (1)
- Consumers (1)
- Dichotomy (1)
- Due process (1)
- Evaluation (1)
- Facilitative (1)
- False dichotomy (1)
- Federal (1)
- Formalist (1)
- Grounds (1)
- Hill v. Gateway (1)
- Interventionist (1)
- Judge (1)
- Law (1)
- Mediation (1)
- Mediator (1)
- Non-evaluative (1)
- Outcome (1)
- Procedural protections (1)
- Right to jury trial (1)
- State action (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Beyond Formalism And False Dichotomies: The Need For Institutionalizing A Flexible Concept Of The Mediator's Role, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Beyond Formalism And False Dichotomies: The Need For Institutionalizing A Flexible Concept Of The Mediator's Role, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Scholarly Works
Related to the problem of the false dichotomy is the formalist application of the either/or construct. If, for example, one adopts as a first premise the view that mediation is by definition non-evaluative, and then rigidly applies this premise to issues of appropriate mediator behavior, the result is a formalist system that permits mediators little or no leeway to depart from the non-evaluative style. This sort of regulatory regimen may satisfy the non-evaluative ethos of some mediation scholars, but it does so at the risk of becoming a rigid system that prevents mediators from taking practical actions most appropriate to …
Gateway Widens Doorway To Imposing Unfair Binding Arbitration On Consumers, Jean R. Sternlight
Gateway Widens Doorway To Imposing Unfair Binding Arbitration On Consumers, Jean R. Sternlight
Scholarly Works
Hill v. Gateway, is but the most extreme example of a series of court decisions that allow large companies to impose potentially unfair binding arbitration agreements on unwitting consumers. The outcome in Gateway, however, is questionable on federal statutory, common law, and constitutional grounds.
Rethinking The Constitutionality Of The Supreme Court's Preference For Binding Arbitration: A Fresh Assessment Of Jury Trial, Separation Of Powers, And Due Process Concerns, Jean R. Sternlight
Rethinking The Constitutionality Of The Supreme Court's Preference For Binding Arbitration: A Fresh Assessment Of Jury Trial, Separation Of Powers, And Due Process Concerns, Jean R. Sternlight
Scholarly Works
Courts and commentators have typically assumed that binding arbitration is both private and consensual, and that it therefore raises no constitutional concerns. This Article challenges both assumptions and goes on to consider arguments that arbitration agreements may unconstitutionally deprive persons of their right to a jury trial, to a judge, and to due process of law. The author argues first that courts' interpretation of seemingly private arbitration agreements may often give rise to "state action," particularly where courts have used a "preference favoring arbitration over litigation" to construe a contract in a non-neutral fashion. The author next draws on the …