The Revised Uniform Arbitration Act: A Tenth Anniversary Reflection - Part 2, Chapter 5 - AAA Yearbook on Arbitration and the Law - 23rd Edition

Stephen K. Huber is Professor Emeritus at the University of Houston Law Center, and has served as a visiting professor at the University of Texas, Rice University (Political Science), Pepperdine Law School (Dispute Resolution Program), and the University of East Africa (Dar es Salaam, Tanzania). He has degrees in law from the University of Chicago and Yale University, and a B.A. from Earlham College. Professor Huber’s teaching and scholarly interest have centered on business and commerce (Contracts), and the regulation thereof (Administrative Law, Regulation of Financial Intermediaries). Over the last decade, his writings have focused on private binding dispute resolution proceedings (Arbitration). Teaching materials include: Stephen K. Huber & Maureen A. Weston, Arbitration: Cases and Materials (3d ed. LexisNexis 2011); Wendy Trachte-Huber & Stephen K. Huber, Mediation and Negotiation: Reaching Agreement in Law and Business (2d ed. LexisNexis 2007). Mr. Huber is a member of the State Bar of Texas, and the editor of Alternative Resolutions, the quarterly journal of the Dispute Resolution Section. He is the author of numerous publications relating to arbitration.

PDF307.28 KB

$40.00

Description:

Originally from: AAA Yearbook on Arbitration and the Law - 23rd Edition

Preview Page

I. Introduction

The Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (RUAA) was adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) at its annual meeting in August, 2000.1 The passing of a decade provides an opportune time to evaluate the status of state arbitration legislation since the RUAA was offered for adoption by the states. The RUAA was designed to replace the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA), promulgated by the NCCUSL in 1955.2 As time passes, the 2000 version is increasingly being referred to as the UAA; however, retention of the UAA and RUAA designations will facilitate comparison of the two model acts. (An alternative approach is to refer to the two model acts as the 1955 UAA and the 2000 UAA.)

The primary purpose of this article is to examine what has happened to the RUAA in the states over the last decade, rather than to detail the differences between the UAA and the RUAA. However, Part II provides a concise history of the NCCUSL’s endeavors in the area of uniform arbitration acts, and Part III summarizes the differences between the 1955 and 2000 model acts. Part IV considers legislative activity (and inactivity) in state legislatures, while Part V examines the nature and