Federal Preemption of Arbitration - Southland Corp. v. Keating

Authors

Ronald A. Conway

Abstract

Arbitration agreements have traditionally been viewed with disfavor.2 Many states have refused to enforce arbitration clauses to the same extent as other agreements, either under the common law or by statute.8 This hostility towards arbitration agreements was the result of an attempt to preserve the courts' jurisdiction. Any agreement which deprived courts of jurisdiction was frowned upon.' The United States Supreme Court recently held that the Federal Arbitration Act5 (FAA) preempts state law and must be applied in state courts. This decision is in accord with a trend throughout the nation to make arbitration agreements specifically enforceable.6 The effect of the Court's holding is to make arbitration agreements specifically enforceable nationwide, in state as well as federal courts.7 This note will examine the preemptive effect of the FAA on state substantive law and the implications for state procedural rules.

Recommended Citation

Ronald A. Conway, Federal Preemption of Arbitration - Southland Corp. v. Keating, 1984 J. Disp. Resol. (1984)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol1984/iss/12