Oregon Law Review : Vol. 90, No. 3, p. 729-772: Fully Federalizing the Federal Arbitration Act
| dc.contributor.author | Yelnosky, Michael J. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2012-04-06T01:18:39Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2012-04-06T01:18:39Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2012 | |
| dc.description | 44 pages | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | There is a widely shared belief that the Supreme Court’s Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) doctrine is far too solicitous of arbitration and not sufficiently solicitous of state lawmaking power. That may be so, but the Court has interpreted one provision of the FAA, the savings clause, to permit the application of state law to invalidate otherwise enforceable arbitration agreements. This Article examines the savings clause and its impact on provisions in arbitration agreements that interfere with the ability of claimants to effectively enforce substantive federal- or state-law rights. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.citation | 90 Or. L. Rev. 729 (2012) | en_US |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0196-2043 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1794/12133 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | University of Oregon School of Law | en_US |
| dc.rights | rights_reserved | en_US |
| dc.title | Oregon Law Review : Vol. 90, No. 3, p. 729-772: Fully Federalizing the Federal Arbitration Act | en_US |
| dc.title.alternative | Fully Federalizing the Federal Arbitration Act | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |