|
Reprints of Journal of Reinsurance Articles are available upon request. The cost of reprints for Non-Member companies will be $50.00 per article. Should you wish to order a reprint using a credit card please utilize IRU's secure online ordering system. Upon processing of your paid order, you will receive an email with the article attached in Adobe Acrobat format. For additional information please call 908-203-0211 or send email request to
Reprints for Member companies are free upon login to the IRU Website. A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 3 records found. Title: Judicial Consolidation of Arbitrations: From Chaos to Predictability Authors: Joseph S. Sano Volume: 13 Number: 4 Issue: Fall 2006 Page: 67 Abstract: Consolidating arbitration proceedings would appear to promote the same efficiencies as arbitration itself. Nevertheless, the results of efforts to consolidate arbitration proceedings in the courts have evolved from a pro-consolidation, common sense approach to a judicial “hands off” mantra with respect to any aspect of arbitration which may be described as “procedural.” A number of state law provisions and the current Uniform Arbitration Act expressly allow judicial consolidation of arbitrations, and some cases have upheld such provisions, yet considerable uncertainty remains as to the central question of whether judicial consolidation is available in interstate and international the arbitrations. Notwithstanding the uncertainty, a framework for analyzing and predicting the outcome of requests for judicial consolidation does exist.a costly exercise and assess what federalization is trying to achieve and whether it is in fact needed. Order Reprint - Download (Requires Login)Title: Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards: The Challenge of the Supreme Courts Decision Authors: Andrew S. Boris, Michael A. Conlon Volume: 15 Number: 4 Issue: Fall 2008 Page: 69 Abstract: When Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act under Title 9, it did so with a two fold purpose in mind 1. ease the strain increased litigation had placed on the court system and 2. elevate the negative perception of arbitration by declaring agreements to arbitrate binding. Over the years, courts have struggled to rule consistently under what has been described as the FAAs conflicting dual purpose. In Hall Street Assoc. v. Mattel, Inc. the US Supreme Court attempted to resolve the ambiguity as it relates to the enforceability of expanded judicial review for arbitration awards. Yet, if rulings since Hall Street are any indication, the challenge to rule consistently on this issue is alive and well. Order Reprint - Download (Requires Login)Title: Junk Science and Electromagnetic Field Radiation Authors: William M. Kinney Volume: 2 Number: 2 Issue: Winter 1994 Page: 1 Abstract: The author examines the changes in the standard used to determine the type of expert testimony allowed by the courts. The changes have been brought about by the Daubert et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. decision which is discussed by the author. Order Reprint - Download (Requires Login) |