Arbitration Law's Separability Doctrine After Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna

28 Pages Posted: 3 Oct 2007 Last revised: 24 Feb 2008

See all articles by Stephen J. Ware

Stephen J. Ware

University of Kansas - School of Law

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.

Suggested Citation

Ware, 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: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1018526

Stephen J. Ware (Contact Author)

University of Kansas - School of Law ( email )

Green Hall
1535 W. 15th Street
Lawrence, KS 66045-7577
United States
785-864-9209 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://www.law.ku.edu/ware

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
631
Abstract Views
3,774
Rank
77,725
PlumX Metrics