De Novo a No No: Contractually Expanded Judicial Review Clauses Do Not Preclude FAA Application in State Court Unless the Parties Make It Intentionally Clear the FAA Does Not Apply in Their Agreement - Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Honea

Authors

Tom Swoboda

Abstract

This Note addresses a recent Alabama Supreme Court decision concerning the issue of contracted appellate review in arbitration agreements. After analyzing the history of enforcement of arbitration agreements between contracting parties in U.S. Supreme Court precedent, this Note will explore the most recent Supreme Court decision regarding when parties may seek judicial review of arbitration awards. The Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) preemptive effect over state court law will also be addressed, as the Supreme Court was not thoroughly explanatory on the issue. This Note will also evaluate and compare another state court ruling in Pennsylvania on the same judicial review provision and its reasoning for a contrary ruling to the Alabama case. Finally, the Note will argue that when parties do not expressly provide that the FAA does not apply to the dispute in controversy, expanded judicial review beyond the FAA's limited scope should be unenforceable.

Recommended Citation

Tom Swoboda, De Novo a No No: Contractually Expanded Judicial Review Clauses Do Not Preclude FAA Application in State Court Unless the Parties Make It Intentionally Clear the FAA Does Not Apply in Their Agreement - Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Honea, 2011 J. Disp. Resol. (2011)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2011/iss1/14