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

View/ Open
Issue Date
2007Author
Ware, Stephen J.
Publisher
William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada
Type
Article
Article Version
Scholarly/refereed, author accepted manuscript
Version
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1018526
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
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.
Collections
Citation
Stephen J. Ware, Arbitration Law's Separability Doctrine After Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 8 Nevada Law Journal 107-134 (2007).
Items in KU ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
We want to hear from you! Please share your stories about how Open Access to this item benefits YOU.