Jewish Law Responds to American Law 175
N N
78.
79.
80. 81.
83.
84. 85. 86.
88.
89.
90.
Erving v. Virginia Squires Basketball Club, 468 F.2d 1064, 1068(2d Cir. 1972) (stating“[w]here federal law is applicable, it should be implemented in such way as to make arbitration effective and not to erect technical and insubstantial barriers,” and“[w]here parties have elected to submit their differences to arbitration, courts should not by hair-splitting decisions hamstring its operation”). But See Franks v. Franks, 1 N.E.2d 14, 15(Mass. 1936)(stating “[clompliance with statute regarding arbitration is jurisdictional requirement to validity of final award”). Hous. Auth. of New Orleans v. Henry Ericsson Co., 2 S0.2d 195, 200(La. 1941)(stating“[g]enerally a submission to arbitration under a statute must conform to statute in every essential particular”). Lundgren v. Freeman, 307 F2d 104, 109(9th Cir. 1962); Acme Cut Stone Co. v. New Center Dev. Corp., 281 Mich. 32(1937).
Funk v. Funk 6 Ariz. App 527, 531(1967).; Maxwell Shapiro Woolen Co. v. Amerotron Corp., 158 N.E.2d 875, 880(Mass. 1959).
Wachusett Spinning Mills, Inc. 183 N.Y.S.2d 601, 603(App. Div. 1959).
New York case law recognizes the authority of Jewish law by analogy as it is a foreign system of law.“A foreign arbitration is valid and will be enforced where the parties voluntarily appear, where opportunity for a hearing is given, where the arbitrators are shown to have been appointed and to have acted in a manner valid under the laws of the place of arbitration, and where no prejudice or fraud is shown.” Coudenhove-Kalergi v. Dieterle, 36 N.Y.S.2d 313(Sup. Ct. 1942).
“ A Board of rabbinical arbitrators selected by husband and wife to settle their marital and financial disputes may apply legal, moral and religious law to the dispute between the parties as to recovery of an alleged sum lent by the wife to her husband.” Berk v. Berk, 171 N.Y.5.2d 592, 593(Sup. Ct. 1957). “Whatever position the Jewish law may take today regarding the probating of wills and settling of estates, the civil law of the State of New York must be applied and is the only law this court can consider.” In re Will of Jacobovitz, 295 N.Y.S.2d 527, 531(Sur. Ct. 1968).
Agur v. Agur, 298 N.Y.S.2d 772, 776(App. Div. 1969).
Berk, 171 N.Y.S.2d at 592-93.
Steve Levin, Disputes Resolved in Jewish Courts, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Aug. 10, 1997.:
“Legal process...in which a child's legal rights and duties toward his jatar] parents are terminated and similar rights and duties toward his adoptive parents are substituted.” Black's Law Dictionary, 1979,(ed. 5th), p. 45. y “[Adoption]... whereby a person takes another person into the elation 0 d child and thereby acquires the rights and incurs the responsibilities of par ent.” In re Adoption of Robert Paul P, 63 N.Y.5.2d 233, 236(1984).. “The most reliable and recent data comes from 1992... The number of adop tions reported was 127,441[of which] two thirds were adopted by Pera ents or relatives...the other third, or about 43,000[are RE# ul than 2 percent of unmarried pregnant women are placing fa= pin adoption.” Laura Mansnerus, Market Puts Price Tags on the Priceless: 11
of a Child, N.Y. Times, Oct. 26, 1998, at A14.) 2 Ibid.“A tangle of state law has made adoption all but A without professional help. Disparate provisions govern, Ro 1 i lawyers roles, residency requirements and birth mothers’ consent.