Lugar de Noticias Haynes and Boone
Congress intended for arbitration to be a faster, less expensive alternative to litigation. Businesses frequently include arbitration clauses in their contracts in an attempt to avoid the time and costs associated with the traditional court system. But judging from the steady stream of arbitration-related decisions emanating from state and federal courts in recent years, even the most “air-tight” arbitration clause cannot guarantee that disputes will be resolved without judicial intervention.
Courts typically deal with arbitration-related disputes in two circumstances. First, when a party to a contract with an arbitration clause resists arbitrating a dispute, the contracting parties often litigate the enforceability and scope of the arbitration clause before any arbitration proceeding begins (referred to herein as “pre-arbitration litigation”).1 Second, after an arbitration panel renders its decision and issues an award, parties frequently turn to the courts in an effort to confirm, modify, or vacate the arbitral award (referred to herein as “post-arbitration litigation”).
This paper provides a comprehensive overview of arbitration-related litigation in Texas and offers guidance for handling an arbitration-related dispute in the court system. This paper does not address judicial review of foreign or international arbitration awards, which is beyond the scope of this paper.
To read the full article click on the PDF linked below.
Originally published by South Texas College of Law as "Law Arbitration-Related Litigation in Texas," 29 Corporate Counsel Rev. 1 (2010).
1 We call this litigation “pre-arbitration litigation” because these disputes typically play out before arbitration takes place. Occasionally, however, arguments regarding the enforceability and scope of an arbitration clause are raised in post-arbitration proceedings after an arbitration award has issued. See, e.g., Morrison v. Amway Corp., 517 F.3d 248 (5th Cir. 2008); Perry v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2008).