Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

Another piece of the Federal Arbitration Act policy puzzle

Article Abstract:

The Supreme Court ruled in Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. that a securities trading account agreement's choice-of-law and arbitration clauses should be interpreted to allow the arbitrator to award punitive damages. Shearson argued that New York laws which restrict punitive damage awards should control because the choice-of-law clause required that New York law was to be applied. The Court interpreted the agreement to be consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and construed ambiguities against the drafter to find that punitive damages could be awarded.

Author: Micheletti, Edward B.
Publisher: Widener University School of Law
Publication Name: Delaware Journal of Corporate Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0364-9490
Year: 1996
Case Note, Commercial arbitration agreements, states

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


'BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore': constitutional challenges to excessive punitive damage awards

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court narrowly decided to interpret the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as limiting excessive punitive damage awards. In their 1996 5-4 BMW of North America v. Gore decision, the Court supported the right to be free from excessive awards in cases where only property has been damaged or involving unintentional conduct. Justices dissenting with the majority expressed concern over the Court's possible interference with a state judicial domain.

Author: Randall, Roger H.
Publisher: Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel
Publication Name: Federation of Insurance & Corporate Counsel Quarterly
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0887-0942
Year: 1997
Laws, regulations and rules, Due process of law, Excessive fines clause (Law)

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Developments in employment arbitration

Article Abstract:

A survey of 80 employers who initiated pre-dispute arbitration plans for unrepresented employees reveals wide patterns of procedures and claim types covered. Pre-dispute arbitration plans were instituted in response to the US Supreme Court's Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp decision, which validated a signed arbitration agreement. A major criticism of such plans is that they coerce employees into abiding by one form of justice.

Author: Bickner, Mei L., Ver Ploeg, Christine, Feigenbaum, Charles
Publisher: American Arbitration Association
Publication Name: Dispute Resolution Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 1074-8105
Year: 1997
Age discrimination, Labor arbitration

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: United States, Cases, Exemplary damages, Punitive damages, Securities arbitration
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: The arbitration of discrimination claims in employment cases
  • Abstracts: The Violence Against Women Act - an emerging employment remedy
  • Abstracts: Transfer regulations preclude consensual variation of contract
  • Abstracts: U.S. taxation of international athletes: a reexamination of the Artiste and Athlete Article in tax treaties. Game theory, signalling, and international legal relations
  • Abstracts: New and unjustified restrictions on Delaware directors' authority. Another trap for the unwary - transactions by investment advisors for officers and directors of publicly traded corporations
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.