Search

I Introduction II First Phase: Discretionary Referral to Arbitration III Second Phase: Mandatory Referral to Arbitration IV Third Phase: Binding Third Parties to Arbitration Agreements A The Pre-Rinehart Position B [...], Third parties represent one of the most contentious and challenging issues in international commercial arbitration, with the fundamentally contractual nature of arbitration struggling to accommodate such persons. This article examines the issue of third parties through the lens of the relationship between courts and arbitrators in the context of applications to restrain litigation in favour of arbitration and anti-arbitration injunctions. The article demonstrates how courts have sought to reconcile two competing goals: holding parties to their bargain on dispute resolution yet avoiding multiple actions by joining third parties to a single proceeding where possible. While the High Court decision in Rinehart v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd makes a key contribution to the debate, the differing positions of consenting and non-consenting third parties need to be appreciated.

The federal courts of appeals exercise a rare power: the power to turn back the clocks and fix their past mistakes. This power--the "power to recall mandate"--allows courts to reassert [...]

INTRODUCTION I. WHERE DID LAWRENCE COME FROM, AND WHAT DID IT SAY? A. Defining "Morals Legislation" B. Morals Legislation Before Lawrence 1. Enforcing morality 2. Changing attitude of the Court [...], In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law criminalizing sexual relations between individuals of the same sex. The Court held that laws based on nothing more than moral disapproval lack a legitimate basis and are therefore unconstitutional. Despite the Court's strong language, state and lower federal courts have adopted contradictory interpretations of Lawrence. In particular, the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits, and several state courts, disagree over the constitutional validity of laws criminalizing the sale of devices used for sexual stimulation. In this Note, I argue that the Fifth Circuit reached the right decision, holding that such laws are unconstitutional after Lawrence. In addition, this Note explores the Court's evolving approach to morals legislation more generally. Part I examines where Lawrence came from and what exactly it said. Part II analyzes state and lower federal court decisions that disagree over the constitutional validity of laws criminalizing the sale of sexual devices. Part III explores the consequences that Lawrence might have for morals legislation going forward.

A New Yorker cartoon depicts a lawyer facing his client, asking the critical question: "You've got a pretty good case, how much justice can you afford?" Of course, the promise [...]