Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The act was drafted as a model arbitration statute to allow each U.S. state to adopt a uniform law of arbitration, instead of having each state enact a unique arbitration statute. The act was updated by the Uniform Law Commission in the year 2000. [1] The new act, called the "Revised Uniform Arbitration Act" has been adopted by eighteen states. [2]
Arbitration, in the context of the law of the United States, is a form of alternative dispute resolution. Specifically, arbitration is an alternative to litigation through which the parties to a dispute agree to submit their respective evidence and legal arguments to a third party (i.e., the arbitrator) for resolution. In practice, arbitration ...
The Florida Statutes are the codified, statutory laws of Florida; it currently has 49 titles. A chapter in the Florida Statutes represents all relevant statutory laws on a particular subject. [1] The statutes are the selected reproduction of the portions of each session law, which are published in the Laws of Florida, that have general ...
The term strict rules of evidence is most commonly used to specify that they are not to be followed. The most common context for this is when a case goes to arbitration instead of to a court of law. [4] Examples in UK law of proceedings not governed by the strict rules of evidence are "civil claims which have been allocated to the small claims ...
FAA requires that parallel state and federal claims be bifurcated when federal claims are non-arbitrable but state claims are. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985). Sherman Act claims are arbitrable, even when contract calls for arbitration before a foreign panel.
a party to the arbitration agreement was, under the law applicable to him, under some incapacity, or the arbitration agreement was not valid under its governing law; a party was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case;
Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that state and federal courts cannot, on a motion to vacate or to modify an arbitration award, expand the limited scope of judicial review specified in 9 U.S.C. §§ 10 and 11, including terms that were agreed upon by the parties.
First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. [1] In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.