U.S. Supreme Court,
Law Practice,
Civil Litigation,
Appellate Practice,
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Dec. 2, 2021
Supreme Court to resolve split over post-arbitration motions
As prior Arbitration Angle columns attest, it is no secret that the Federal Arbitration Act creates a vast number of substantive and procedural rules. But what exactly does the FAA say, or more precisely, what does it mean, regarding whether federal courts have jurisdiction to enforce such rules? We’re about to find out.
Gary A. Watt
Partner
Hanson Bridgett LLP
State Bar Approved, Certified Appellate Specialist
Email: gwatt@hansonbridgett.com
Gary chairs Hanson Bridgett's Appellate Practice. He is a State Bar-approved, certified appellate specialist. In addition to writs and appeals, his practice includes anti-SLAPP and post-trial motions as well as trial and appellate consulting. His blog posts can be read at www.appellateinsight.com.
Patrick Burns
Partner
Hanson Bridgett LLP
Email: pburns@hansonbridgett.com
Patrick is a partner in the firm's Appellate Practice. Patrick focuses on writs and appeals, as well as law and motion in the state and federal courts. A former litigator at a global law firm, Patrick has experience litigating high-stakes disputes. He can be reached at pburns@hansonbridgett.com and his blog posts can be read at www.appellateinsight.com.
As prior Arbitration Angle columns attest, it is no secret that the Federal Arbitration Act creates a vast number of substantive and procedural rules. But what exactly does the FAA say, or more precise...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In