Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Section 1983 Litigation: Post-Pearson And Post-Iqbal, Karen M. Blum
Section 1983 Litigation: Post-Pearson And Post-Iqbal, Karen M. Blum
Touro Law Review
The Supreme Court's decision in Pearson v. Callahan marked a significant change in the structure of the analysis to be performedin the adjudication of the qualified immunity defense in§ 1983 litigation. Prior to Pearson, the Court required a mandatory two-step approach for the qualified immunity analysis. Whenever qualified immunity was raised in response to an alleged constitutional violation, the lower courts were instructed that the disposition of the qualified immunity issue required the court to first address the merits question. Under Saucier v. Katz, the courts were required first to decide whether the complaint stated a violation of a constitutional …
Court Litigation Over Arbitration Agreements: Is It Time For A New Default Rule?, Jack Graves
Court Litigation Over Arbitration Agreements: Is It Time For A New Default Rule?, Jack Graves
Scholarly Works
Court litigation over the existence or validity of arbitration agreements is a major threat to the efficacy of international commercial arbitration. While New York Convention Article II(3) requires a court to “refer the parties to arbitration” when faced with a valid and effective arbitration agreement, it fails to provide any guidance with respect to the process for answering that question, thus leaving the issue to national law. A recalcitrant respondent may, therefore, have a variety of options for court challenges—based on a disparate array of national laws—in seeking to delay or at least complicate any claims subject to arbitration. This …
Court Litigation Over Arbitration Agreements: Is It Time For A New Default Rule?, Jack Graves
Court Litigation Over Arbitration Agreements: Is It Time For A New Default Rule?, Jack Graves
Scholarly Works
Court litigation over the existence or validity of arbitration agreements is a major threat to the efficacy of international commercial arbitration. While New York Convention Article II(3) requires a court to “refer the parties to arbitration” when faced with a valid and effective arbitration agreement, it fails to provide any guidance with respect to the process for answering that question, thus leaving the issue to national law. A recalcitrant respondent may, therefore, have a variety of options for court challenges—based on a disparate array of national laws—in seeking to delay or at least complicate any claims subject to arbitration. This …