Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWare, Stephen J.
dc.date.accessioned2011-04-28T15:55:56Z
dc.date.available2011-04-28T15:55:56Z
dc.date.issued2007
dc.identifier.citationStephen J. Ware, Arbitration Law's Separability Doctrine After Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 8 Nevada Law Journal 107-134 (2007).
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/7447
dc.description.abstractThe 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.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherWilliam S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada
dc.relation.hasversionhttp://ssrn.com/abstract=1018526
dc.subjectArbitration
dc.titleArbitration Law's Separability Doctrine After Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna
dc.typeArticle
kusw.kuauthorWare, Stephen J.
kusw.kudepartmentLaw
kusw.oastatusfullparticipation
kusw.oaversionScholarly/refereed, author accepted manuscript
kusw.oapolicyThis item meets KU Open Access policy criteria.
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record