Legal Opinion · Dissent
Stuart v. Walker
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided October 28, 2010No. 09-CV-900Published
1DissentSteadman, Senior Judge
For reasons set forth below, I believe the majority applies too woodenly the concept of finality. I would uphold § 16-4427(a)(1) of the District of Columbia Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (“DCRUAA”), codified at D.C.Code § 16-4401 et seq. (2009 Supp.), as I do not believe it violates the District of Columbia Home Rule Act by expanding this court’s jurisdiction.
In 1955, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Bar Association approved a model Uniform Arbitration Act (“UAA”). See generally Unif. ARBITRATION Act, 7 U.L.A. 99 (1956). Section 19 of that act…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. RandolphSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. MacKeySupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. CarpenterSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.