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