Tagged: harmony out of chaos

“The following discussion of post-Stolt-Nielsen decisions shows, however, that federal courts have not uniformly applied the Supreme Court’s ripeness test and, instead, sometimes have elected either to ignore the ripeness issue or to apply a more traditional finality and/or functus officio analysis in resolving whether a particular interlocutory arbitral decision is subject to immediate judicial review. As a result, issues relating to finality and functus officio have now become signficantly more complicated by both the advent of ripeness considerations and the propensity of lower federal courts to continue to inject new concepts and analyses into the mix.”

P. Kevin Castel “elected to ignore ripeness issue” altogether…

Source: James M. Gaitis. Finality, Ripeness, and Functus Officio: The Interlocutory Arbitral Award Conundrum. Journal of the ACCL. Vol. 7, No. 2. pg. 29-30. 2013.

“As is often the case when splits in authority develop among the various federal circuits, however, the lack of uniformity did not provide sufficient incentive to bring harmony out of chaos. Rather, in the lead up to Stolt-Nielsen, differing federal courts of appeal not only continued to take divergent courses in addressing those questions but also actually arrived at decisions that further complicated the issues in undesirable ways.”

Source: James M. Gaitis. Finality, Ripeness, and Functus Officio: The Interlocutory Arbitral Award Conundrum. Journal of the ACCL. Vol. 7, No. 2. pg. 19-20. 2013.