A United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit panel has issued an interesting ruling in a case involving arbitration. 

Will Pryor has once again written an annual survey of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) law in Texas for the SMU Law Review. This is the third year ADR was included in Law Review’s Annual Survey of Texas Law issue and also the third time Pryor has provided his expertise and insight. In “Alternative Dispute Resolution,” 63 SMU Law Review 275 (2010), Pryors’s article largely concerns developments in Texas arbitration law. He notes the shake-up caused by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008), led “appellate courts everywhere. . . to reevaluate and reverse decades of appellate law. . . ” After touching upon Moore v. Altra Energy Technologies, Inc., 295 S.W.3d 404 (2009), and its contribution to Texas mediation law, the remainder of the article is focused on arbitration. The bulk of arbitration cases discussed in the article were sub-divided into one of four sets: cases where an arbitration agreement was enforced; cases where an arbitration agreement was not enforced; cases where an arbitration award was confirmed; and cases where arbitration award was set aside. As in his previous surveys, Pryor’s summaries provide a convenient overview of the past year’s developments in alternative dispute resolution law. Disputing has blogged on several of the cases discussed in Pryor’s article: Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. was blogged about many times including here, here and here. In re Labatt Food Service, L.P. was discussed here, here and here. Graves v. B.P. America, Inc. here, here and here. Perry Homes v. Cull here. In re Poly-America, L.P. was described here and here. Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law