In Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, the Supreme Court again endorsed a contractual approach to arbitration law. In particular, the Court requires lower courts to apply contract law principles when determining whether arbitration agreements are unconscionable. However, the Court did not explain how the unconscionability doctrine would actually be applied to typical arbitration cases. The author here picks up where the Court left off and in so doing advocates the contractual approach over competing approaches to issues of unconscionability in arbitration
Bridge Fund Capital Corp. v. FastBucks Franchise Corp. illustrates a recent manifestation of an ongo...
Mandatory arbitration clauses in employment agreements are the subject of a fair amount of controver...
Part I of this Article sketches the basics of arbitration law and practice, and traces the developme...
In Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, the Supreme Court again endorsed a contractual approach t...
This Article first explores the Supreme Court\u27s initially reluctant application of the FAA\u27s c...
As a means of countering the pro-arbitration stance taken by the Supreme Court, a number of lower co...
none1noIn the case AT&T Mobility v. Conception, U.S. Supreme Court held that California state contra...
However incomplete, unaggressive, or sub-optimal, unconscionability analysis of arbitration agreemen...
In Davis v. O\u27Melveny & Myers, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether an arbitrati...
This Article examines the California courts\u27 unconscionability jurisprudence, highlighting the di...
In 1925, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) as a means of quelling judicial hostilit...
This Article takes a new approach to resolving the growing tension between the Federal Arbitration A...
This Article evaluates how state courts have applied the unconscionability doctrine to contracts, in...
This commentary looks at a Supreme Court case, Imburgia v. DIRECTV, in which the Court faces the que...
Manfredi v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield suggests that this old judicial hostility is alive and well i...
Bridge Fund Capital Corp. v. FastBucks Franchise Corp. illustrates a recent manifestation of an ongo...
Mandatory arbitration clauses in employment agreements are the subject of a fair amount of controver...
Part I of this Article sketches the basics of arbitration law and practice, and traces the developme...
In Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, the Supreme Court again endorsed a contractual approach t...
This Article first explores the Supreme Court\u27s initially reluctant application of the FAA\u27s c...
As a means of countering the pro-arbitration stance taken by the Supreme Court, a number of lower co...
none1noIn the case AT&T Mobility v. Conception, U.S. Supreme Court held that California state contra...
However incomplete, unaggressive, or sub-optimal, unconscionability analysis of arbitration agreemen...
In Davis v. O\u27Melveny & Myers, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether an arbitrati...
This Article examines the California courts\u27 unconscionability jurisprudence, highlighting the di...
In 1925, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) as a means of quelling judicial hostilit...
This Article takes a new approach to resolving the growing tension between the Federal Arbitration A...
This Article evaluates how state courts have applied the unconscionability doctrine to contracts, in...
This commentary looks at a Supreme Court case, Imburgia v. DIRECTV, in which the Court faces the que...
Manfredi v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield suggests that this old judicial hostility is alive and well i...
Bridge Fund Capital Corp. v. FastBucks Franchise Corp. illustrates a recent manifestation of an ongo...
Mandatory arbitration clauses in employment agreements are the subject of a fair amount of controver...
Part I of this Article sketches the basics of arbitration law and practice, and traces the developme...