Nonconsensual + Nonbinding = Nonsensical? Reconsidering Court-Connected Arbitration Programs

Schmitz, Amy J.

Journal: Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

Volume: 10

First Page: 587

Year: 2009

Bluebook Citation: 10 CARDOZO J. CONFLICT RESOL. 587 (2009)

Author: Amy J. Schmitz: all 20 publications


Citation analytics

How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Cited
1
Citing decision
1
Courts citing
Most recently cited by1
  • 2013Delaware Coalition for Open Government, Inc. v. Strine 3d Cir.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Abstract

Policymakers have adopted programs mandating parties to submit their disputes to court-connected arbitration hoping to garner efficiency benefits commonly associated with contractual Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) arbitration. Mandatory nonbinding arbitration, however, is ill-equipped for this task because it lacks the consensual core and finality of FAA arbitration. Instead, it often adds an inefficient layer to the litigation process and may harm those least able to protect themselves from coerced settlements or burdens of protracted litigation.

Chat with this journal article using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this journal article, verify citations, and research related authorities. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.