Land usage regulation has shifted from a hierarchical, permit-granting model towards a negotiation-centric model with a binding contract as its goal. The author discusses how the private, bilateral nature of contract negotiations represents a shift away from the values of the original regulatory scheme, and how these types of negotiations both comport with and deviate from the so called New Governance scheme, particularly in their lack of transparency and multi-party collaboration.
In this 1987 article, Professor Stipanowich extensively analyzes data from an unprecedented broad-based survey on contract-based commercial arbitration in the United States. The study, based on a survey by the ABA Forum on the Construction Industry, provides considerable insight into experiences and perceptions of American attorneys regarding arbitration and litigation of construction and engineering disputes
Gaitis discusses how in the last decade the courts in Montana have attempted to limit the Federal Arbitration Act's effects on parties in Montana. He argues that recent Supreme Court decisions along with decisions of the Ninth Circuit have increased the power of arbitrators at the expense of Montanans.
Copyright owners' initial response to peer-to-peer file sharing-trying to shut down the technologies that facilitate file sharing-is bad for society. It would be preferable to lower enforcement costs for copyright owners by making dispute resolution quick and cheap. The Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) provides a model for Internet domain name trademark disputes. The UDRP also provides an alternative dispute resolution system for trademark owners' disputes with infringers.
As a practicing attorney, Castleberry presents a realistic view of the costs and benefits of arbitration clauses in employment contracts and when an employer should consider having an arbitration clause. Additionally, he highlights that not all arbitration clauses are enforceable and gives advice on how to avoid possible pitfalls.
The foreclosure crisis has forced state and local governments to find remedies to control the rising tide of foreclosure. Several states have, in response to the recent crisis, enacted legislation requiring the lender to discuss alternatives with the lendee prior to foreclosure, or have made foreclosure contingent on mandatory mediation. Despite these efforts, states have not effectuated their maximum constitutional power to require mediation and mitigation of foreclosure disputes.
The author notes how rising costs in litigation should result in employment disputes being resolved in alternative methods, such as arbitration. Once publication of arbitration awards moves toward preserving anonymity and arbitration proceedings do not compromise substantive rights, resorting to arbitration in resolving employer disputes should be welcomed because arbitration offers more access to justice and is much cheaper than resorting to traditional forms of litigation.
The article summarizes the law surrounding advisory arbitration in New York and aims to assist attorneys and litigants in determining whether advisory arbitration is a feasible form of dispute resolution for their organizations. The author claims that advisory arbitration, due to its lack of finality, serves little purpose in public or private sector labor-management relations. However, advisory arbitration may be suited for non-union private or public sector.
Since 1970, at least 30 states have enacted legislation capping the damages plaintiffs can recover in a lawsuit. Guided by previous research on suit and settlement, we outline a simple framework for examining the effects of a cap on litigant judgments and the pretrial settlement rate. We then introduce several refinements to the simple framework that are based on findings from behavioral economics and psychology. In particular, we recognize litigants may possess role-specific biases in information...
NAFTA, with its provision for investor-state arbitrations, has gone beyond protecting investors from third world style nationalization of assets and created a system by which multinational corporations may punish governments where regulatory legislation is construed as a regulatory taking. But unlike regulatory-takings cases heard in public courts, NAFTA disputes are heard in private and potentially provide only for the investor's point of view to be fully considered.