The Clash between Federal and State Arbitration Law and the Appropriateness of Arbitration as a Dispute Resolution Process

Authors

Margaret M. Harding, Syracuse University College of LawFollow

Abstract

I. Introduction

II. Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto ... A. The Facts ... B. Montana Uniform Arbitration Act ... C. Casarotto v. Lombardi (Casarotto I)—Judicial Hostility to Arbitration Revisited ... 1. The Majority Opinion ... 2. Justice Trieweiler’s Concurrence ... 3. The Dissents ... D. The Supreme Court’s Remand ... E. Casarotto v. Lombardi (Casarotto II)—The First Remand ... F. The Supreme Court’s Opinion in Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto ... G. Casarotto v. Lombardi (Casarotto III)—The Second Remand

III. Federalism Issues and the FAA ... A. Background of the Passage of the FAA ... 1. Law in the United States Prior to the Enactment of the FAA—The Revocability Doctrine ... 2. The Demise of the Revocability Doctrine ... 3. The FAA ... 4. The Uniform Arbitration Act (“UAA”) and State Arbitration Law ... B. Origins of the Clash ... 1. The Problems Created by Erie and the Court’s Perspective Regarding Arbitration ... 2. Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., Resolves the Erie Dilemma ... 3. The Consequences of Prima Paint ... i. The FAA’s Strong Federal Policy Favoring Arbitration ... ii. The Applicability of the FAA to State Court Proceedings ... iii. Consequences of Southland ... C. Role of State Law after Southland and Doctor’s Associates

IV. Appropriateness of Arbitration

V. Conclusion

Recommended Citation

Margaret M. Harding, The Clash between Federal and State Arbitration Law and the Appropriateness of Arbitration as a Dispute Resolution Process, 77 Neb. L. Rev. (1998)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol77/iss3/2