LSN: Contract Litigation最新文献

筛选

英文中文

AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and the Antidiscrimination Theory of FAA Preemption AT&T移动诉康塞普西翁案及FAA优先权的反歧视理论

LSN: Contract Litigation Pub Date : 2012-04-26 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2046453

Hiro N. Aragaki

引用次数: 0

The Structure of the Law on Multiparty-Situations in the 2009 Draft Common Frame of Reference and Belgian Law 2009年共同参考框架草案与比利时法律中多党制的法律结构

LSN: Contract Litigation Pub Date : 2008-09-01 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2871103

M. Storme

引用次数: 0

The Continuing Voice of Dissent: Justice Thomas and the Federal Arbitration Act 持续的异议之声:托马斯法官与联邦仲裁法

LSN: Contract Litigation Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3006415

Brian Farkas

{"title":"The Continuing Voice of Dissent: Justice Thomas and the Federal Arbitration Act","authors":"Brian Farkas","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3006415","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3006415","url":null,"abstract":"Since 1984, a majority of the Supreme Court has held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts conflicting state arbitration laws, and that the FAA must be applied in state courts. Consequently, federal courts have invalidated many states’ attempts to regulate arbitration. This reality has shaped American arbitration law for over three decades. Justice Clarence Thomas has vigorously fought against this approach to arbitration policy since he joined the Supreme Court. Indeed, he has been among the most vocal and consistent opponents of the application of the FAA in state court proceedings. Yet his voice has always been in dissent, most recently in the December 2015 decision in DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia. This Article represents the most comprehensive examination to date of Justice Thomas’ views on both the FAA and arbitration more broadly. Beginning with a background on the FAA’s history and the Supreme Court’s arbitration jurisprudence, it explores his unique judicial philosophy and its intersection with arbitration policy. In an area of procedural law that evades facile labels of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative,’ Justice Thomas shows the ways in which a conservative preference for states’ rights can actually lead to liberal procedural and substantive outcomes.","PeriodicalId":405630,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Contract Litigation","volume":"88 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114547939","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

首页上一页