Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Muddy Mess: The Supreme Court’S Jurisprudence On Jurisdiction For Arbitration Matters, Kristen M. Blankley
A Muddy Mess: The Supreme Court’S Jurisprudence On Jurisdiction For Arbitration Matters, Kristen M. Blankley
University of Miami Law Review
The Supreme Court’s 2022 Badgerow v. Waters decision at- tempts to create a bright-line rule regarding access to federal courts to hear arbitration matters. On its face, the Badgerow majority opinion reads like a straightforward exercise in textualism. Badgerow interpreted the judicial test for jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provision regarding vacatur differently than it interpreted the jurisdictional test for a motion to compel under a different part of the statute. However, Badgerow leaves courts, which were already struggling to decipher the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision of Vaden v. Discover Bank, with a significant number of outstanding questions. …
A Cure For Every Ill? Remedies For “Pathological” Arbitration Clauses, Harout J. Samra, Ramya Ramachanderan
A Cure For Every Ill? Remedies For “Pathological” Arbitration Clauses, Harout J. Samra, Ramya Ramachanderan
University of Miami Law Review
Defective arbitration and dispute resolution clauses—widely called “pathological clauses”—may undermine parties’ intent to seek recourse to arbitration rather than the courts. Questions concerning the existence and validity of arbitration clauses are subject to state contract law despite the wide sweep of the Federal Arbitration Act. This Article examines selected common “pathologies” and reviews recent court decisions, including from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and its constituent federal district courts, concerning the enforcement of such clauses.