|
Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
New York, USA
Processing request.
|
Illinois, USA
Processing request.
|
Brussels, Belgium
Processing request.
|
Seoul, Korea
Processing request.
|
California, USA
Processing request.
|
If you have any problems downloading this paper,
please click on another Download Location above, or
File name: SSRN-id1095798. ; Size: 353K
|
|
Arbitration Law's Separability Doctrine After Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna
Stephen J. Ware
University of Kansas - School of Law
Nevada Law Journal, Vol. 8, No. 107, 2007
Abstract:
The recent case of Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, is only the second Supreme Court decision applying the separability doctrine and it comes nearly forty years after the Court's first separability decision, Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Co. Arbitration's tremendous growth during those forty years - and the arrival of Buckeye - make this an opportune time to assess the current state of the separability doctrine. In doing that, this Article will analyze Prima Paint and Buckeye and discuss the separability issues they leave unresolved. Finally, this Article will critique the separability doctrine and call for its repeal by Congress.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 28
Accepted Paper Series
Download This Paper
Date posted: October 3, 2007
; Last revised: February 24, 2008
Suggested CitationWare, Stephen J., Arbitration Law's Separability Doctrine After Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna. Nevada Law Journal, Vol. 8, No. 107, 2007. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1018526
|
| Feedback to SSRN (Beta) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
