Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- 12(b)(6) (1)
- Access to the courts (1)
- Arbitration (1)
- Caperton v. a.t. massey coal co (1)
- Civil rights (1)
-
- Conley (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Discriminate (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Dispute resolution (1)
- Dispute system design (1)
- Embedded neutrals (1)
- Employment (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Iqbal (1)
- Mediate (1)
- Motion to dismiss (1)
- Negotiate (1)
- Negotiation (1)
- Notice pleading (1)
- Pleading (1)
- Rule 8(a) (1)
- Summary jury trial (1)
- Twombly (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
What Is '(Im)Partial Enough' In A World Of Embedded Neutrals?, Nancy A. Welsh
What Is '(Im)Partial Enough' In A World Of Embedded Neutrals?, Nancy A. Welsh
Journal Articles
The Supreme Court’s decision in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. highlighted the fragility of judicial independence and impartiality in the United States. A similar, less-noticed fragility of independence and impartiality exists among the arbitrators, mediators and administrative hearing officers who resolve an increasing number of disputes. Everywhere one looks, there is unremarked yet remarkable evidence of the rise of - embedded neutrals, particularly in uneven contexts between one-time and repeat players. This phenomenon becomes particularly worrisome when the embedded neutral’s role is due to their special relationship with the repeat player, and the one-time player is not as …
I Could Have Been A Contender: Summary Jury Trial As A Means To Overcome Iqbal's Negative Effects Upon Pre-Litigation Communication, Negotiation And Early, Consensual Dispute Resolution, Nancy A. Welsh
Journal Articles
With its recent decisions in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, the Supreme Court may be intentionally or unintentionally “throwing the fight,” at least in the legal contests between many civil rights claimants and institutional defendants. The most obvious feared effect is reduction of civil rights claimants’ access to the expressive and coercive power of the courts. Less obviously, the Supreme Court may be effectively undermining institutions’ motivation to negotiate, mediate - or even communicate with and listen to - such claimants before they initiate legal action. Thus, the Supreme Court’s recent decisions have the potential to deprive …