Goldstein Litigation & Arbitration Chambers: First Thoughts on Stolt-Nielsen: When Deference is Not Due
By Don Philbin, April 28, 2010
This post has been viewed 2,209 times.
This post has been viewed 2,209 times.
Goldstein Litigation & Arbitration Chambers: First Thoughts on Stolt-Nielsen: When Deference is Not Due arbblog.lexmarc.us/2010/04/first-thoughts-on-stolt-nielsen-when-deference-is-not-due/
Read original articleTags: Arbitration
Related Posts
What Constitutes Arbitration for Federal Arbitration Act Purposes?
June 24, 2014
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16, codifies the federal policy of enforcing arbitration agreements....
June 24, 2014
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16, codifies the federal policy of enforcing arbitration agreements....
Judge Posner Sarcastically Applauds ‘New Form of Arbitration’ After Garner’s Expert Evaluates Tiff
May 22, 2014
Legal Times published Posner’s response in a second article. “Please convey my congratulations to Bryan Garner on inventing...
May 22, 2014
Legal Times published Posner’s response in a second article. “Please convey my congratulations to Bryan Garner on inventing...
Rethinking the Arbitration Clause
May 19, 2014
We’ve discussed the ins and outs of arbitration at length previously. I’ve spent the last few years in a number of arbitration...
May 19, 2014
We’ve discussed the ins and outs of arbitration at length previously. I’ve spent the last few years in a number of arbitration...
