d=667&mid=1031.
It seems to me that there is a confusion in the opinion between two issues: (1)
cases implicating the church autonomy doctrine and the constitutional
protections afforded religious institutions to govern themselves and (2)
religious arbitration cases where the parties have sig
r not the arbitrators followed
the procedures selected by the parties in their arbitration agreement.
(2)Because this was a religious arbitration, the court would have to render
a view regarding Islamic procedural law in order to determine whether or not
the correct procedures were followed
arbitration of secular disputes just like secular arbitration of secular
disputes, or whether we attach independent significance to the fact that
it's a religious tribunal. But this one sounds like religious arbitration of
a religious dispute.
Note too that judicial review of secular arbitrati
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 11:47 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: May court deciding whether religious arbit
Law Academics
Cc: Volokh, Eugene
Subject: RE: May court deciding whether religious arbitration followed
Dear Eugene,
It strikes me that, regrettably, the headline is a bit misleading and so,
perhaps, unnecessarily inflammatory. I mean, it is not the case that a judge
simply "ordered the us
nd to be a helpful and
engaging paper coming out on religious arbitration and pluralism. It's here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1773928
Best,
Rick
Richard W. Garnett
Professor of Law and Associate Dean
Notre Dame Law School
P.O. Box 780
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556-078
Any thoughts on this story? It's been getting quite a bit attention online;
the order is at http://www.jihadwatch.org/images/HillsboroughFLCase1.jpg and
http://www.jihadwatch.org/images/HillsboroughFLCase2.jpg . As best I can tell,
the parties had agreed to Islamic arbitration before a particu
; -Original Message-
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
> boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Finkelman, Paul
>
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 10:11 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Religious arbitratio
s.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:22 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Religious arbitration
I'm not sure whether 42 USC 1981 would apply to arbitral tribunal
I have not seen the question litigated, and because the arbitral
parties are the only parties likely to raise the witness's rights, the
absence of litigation is not surprising. But racially based witness
disabilities were a badge or incident of servitude, and therefore
within the reach of
I'm not sure whether 42 USC 1981 would apply to arbitral tribunals'
decisions about which witnesses to consider; but if it does, I wonder how it
would apply to Beth Dins. As I understand it, certain kinds of witnesses
before those tribunals must be adult, male, Sabbath observing Jews.
rs were chosen from a pool in which women are
deliberately not included?
I should say that I've in the past defended the propriety of
religious arbitration, see
http://volokh.com/posts/1202446904.shtml; and I myself would likely
accept, on freedom of contract grounds, agr
The Section on Jewish Law is doing a program on religious arbitration at the
AALS in January. Folks interested in this thread may be interested in that
program.
I am supposed to speak at that program, which means I have to learn a lot
about religious arbitration between now and then. So keep
chosen from a pool in which women are deliberately not
included?
I should say that I've in the past defended the propriety of religious
arbitration, see http://volokh.com/posts/1202446904.shtml; and I myself would
likely accept, on freedom of contract grounds, agreed-to arbitrations
14 matches
Mail list logo
