Mayhew-Hite Report
Current Edition Lead Article Article Summary Case Summary Student Spotlight Archives JDR Home


The Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution is pleased to bring you Volume 6, Issue 2 of the Mayhew-Hite Report on Dispute Resolution and the Courts.


In Should Courts Enforce Party Agreements to Expand Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards: Hall Street Assoc., LLC v. Mattel, Inc., Sarah Cole and Catherine Adkins explore a recent Supreme Court case concerning whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) prohibits federal courts from enforcing a post-dispute agreement to review an arbitration award for legal errors or to determine whether substantial evidence supports the arbitrator's factual findings. The Court's decision will resolve a split among the circuits regarding the enforceability of party agreements to expand judicial review of arbitration awards. Following the oral argument, which took place on November 7, 2007, the Supreme Court issued a request for a supplemental briefing on issues regarding the FAA. Cole and Adkins predict that although the Supreme Court may hold such agreements enforceable, the oral argument and request for supplemental briefing might suggest that the Court will take Chief Justice Roberts' view that expanded judicial review requests transform the underlying process into one that is not governed by the FAA. The full-text of this article can be accessed here.


In Lesbian (M)Otherhood: Creating an Alternative Model for Settling Child Custody Disputes, Nadine A. Gartner proposes that the current legal system is ill-equipped for handling child custody disputes between lesbian mothers because the legal doctrines relied on by the courts derive from a heterosexual view of marriage and reflect patriarchal views of parenthood. Instead, she proposes a special mediation model because mediation better reflects lesbian families, and its outcomes are more likely to be respected and followed. Gartner's contention is that following her mediation model can best help lesbian families work toward achieving a "maximizing collective interests" standard, and promote the values of warmth, equality, community, and tolerance. A detailed summary of this law review article can be accessed here.


In February of 2008, the Supreme Court of Utah announced its decision in Reese v. Tingey Construction v. LWP Claims Solutions, Inc., 2008 Utah 7. At issue in this case was whether Utah's Alternative Dispute Resolution Act requires mediation content pertaining to an alleged agreement reached to be kept confidential, and whether Utah law requires agreements reached in mediation to be reduced to writing in order to be enforceable by a court. The case arose after LWP, a party to mediation, claimed no agreement had been reached, and the court sought to force LWP's attorney to appear and be deposed regarding the content of the mediation. The Supreme Court of Utah held that absent a statutory exception, the content of mediation was confidential despite the trial court's characterization of the settlement agreement as "nonconfidential" since it dealt with the process of mediation. The court also held that agreements arising from mediation must be reduced to writing to be enforceable by a court. A detailed summary of this case can be accessed here.


In Mediation Can Work for Juvenile-Perpetrated Domestic Violence: A Second Look at Family Violence Mediation, Paige Schweitzer argues that disputes involving domestic violence by children against parents are not benefited by traditional adversarial adjudication. Schweitzer suggests that mediation of these disputes in a safe, structured environment can provide benefits to children and parents that would be unavailable in litigation, since it shifts the focus from blame and denial to the development of conflict-reducing strategies for the children and parents. Paige Schweizter is a 2008 J.D. candidate at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, where she has taken classes in mediation and other methods of alternative dispute resolution. This fall, she will begin working at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, in Cincinnati, Ohio. The full-text of this paper can be accessed here.


Editors: Abbie Sockloff and Laura Drongowski, in collaboration with members of the Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution.

Advisor: Professor Sarah R. Cole

Send Comments To:
Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution
The Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law
55 West 12th Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43210-1391
Phone Number: (614) 292-7170