FEDERAL · 28 U.S.C. · Chapter 44
Arbitrators
28 U.S.C. § 655
Title28 — Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Chapter44 — ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
This text of 28 U.S.C. § 655 (Arbitrators) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
28 U.S.C. § 655.
Text
(a)Powers of Arbitrators.—An arbitrator to whom an action is referred under section 654 shall have the power, within the judicial district of the district court which referred the action to arbitration—
(1)to conduct arbitration hearings;
(2)to administer oaths and affirmations; and
(3)to make awards.
(b)Standards for Certification.—Each district court that authorizes arbitration shall establish standards for the certification of arbitrators and shall certify arbitrators to perform services in accordance with such standards and this chapter. The standards shall include provisions requiring that any arbitrator—
(c)Immunity.—All individuals serving
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute
448 U.S. 607 (Supreme Court, 1980)
Hays and Company, as Trustee for Monge Oil Corporation v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
885 F.2d 1149 (Third Circuit, 1989)
Bennett v. Pippin
74 F.3d 578 (Fifth Circuit, 1996)
In Re Black
47 F.2d 542 (Second Circuit, 1931)
United States v. Albert Snyder
413 F.2d 288 (Ninth Circuit, 1969)
In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas
363 So. 2d 651 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1978)
Reiman v. Breslin
418 A.2d 1293 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1980)
Delaware Coalition for Open Government v. Strine
894 F. Supp. 2d 493 (D. Delaware, 2012)
State v. Klempt
910 P.2d 326 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1995)
In re a Grand Jury Subpoena Served on Germann
262 F. Supp. 707 (S.D. New York, 1966)
In re Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.
38 F.2d 833 (N.D. California, 1930)
Haug v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.
944 F. Supp. 421 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1996)
United States v. Williams
557 F. Supp. 616 (E.D. Tennessee, 1982)
Alphagraphics, Inc. v. Shapiro
935 F. Supp. 1012 (N.D. Illinois, 1996)
Shulton, Inc. v. Optel Corp.
126 F.R.D. 80 (S.D. Florida, 1989)
CNA Financial Corporation v. Brown
162 F.3d 1334 (Eleventh Circuit, 1998)
Anning-Johnson Co. v. Coliseum Construction, Inc. Maritza Capous
956 F.2d 274 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Source Credit
History
(Added Pub. L. 100–702, title IX, §901(a), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4661; amended Pub. L. 105–315, §7, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2996.)
Editorial Notes
Editorial Notes
Amendments
1998—Pub. L. 105–315 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to arbitrators for provisions relating to trial de novo.
Amendments
1998—Pub. L. 105–315 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to arbitrators for provisions relating to trial de novo.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
28 U.S.C. § 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/28/655.