25 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2004 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corporation of Americagreen2 sentences2002In Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of Am., the Minnesota Supreme Court set forth guidelines for a court to use to determine who should determine whether the parties intended to arbitrate a dispute: (1) If the parties evinced a clear intent to arbitrate a controversy arising out of specific provisions of the contract, the matter is for the arbitrators to determine and not the court. (2) If the intention of the parties is reasonably debatable as to the scope of the arbitration clause, the issue of arbitrability is to be initially determined by the arbitrators * * *. (3) If no agreement to arbitra 2002In Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of Am., the Minnesota Supreme Court set forth guidelines for a court to use to determine who should determine whether the parties intended to arbitrate a dispute: (1) If the parties evinced a clear intent to arbitrate a controversy arising out of specific provisions of the contract, the matter is for the arbitrators to determine and not the court. (2) If the intention of the parties is reasonably debatable as to the scope of the arbitration clause, the issue of arbitrability is to be initially determined by the arbitrators * * *. (3) If no agreement to arbitra | 16 | 20 |
Layne-Minnesota Co. v. Regents of the University of Minnesotagreen2 sentences1984Drawing upon the 1963 case of Layne-Minnesota Co. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, 266 Minn. 284, 291 , 123 N.W.2d 371, 376 (1963), we delineated as follows the standard applicable in actions to compel arbitration: (1) If the parties evinced a clear intent to arbitrate a controversy arising out of specific provisions of the contract, the matter is for the arbitrators to determine and not the court. (2) If the intention of the parties is reasonably debatable as to the scope of the arbitration clause, the issue of arbitrability is to be initially determined by the arbitrators subject t 1984Drawing upon the 1963 case of Layne-Minnesota Co. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, 266 Minn. 284, 291 , 123 N.W.2d 371, 376 (1963), we delineated as follows the standard applicable in actions to compel arbitration: (1) If the parties evinced a clear intent to arbitrate a controversy arising out of specific provisions of the contract, the matter is for the arbitrators to determine and not the court. (2) If the intention of the parties is reasonably debatable as to the scope of the arbitration clause, the issue of arbitrability is to be initially determined by the arbitrators subject t | 2 | 5 |
Rosenberger v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.green2 sentences1983See Dunshee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 303 Minn. 473, 482 , 228 N.W.2d 567, 572 (1975); Rosenberger v. American Family Insurance Co., 309 N.W.2d 305, 308 (Minn.1981). 1983See Dunshee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 303 Minn. 473, 482 , 228 N.W.2d 567, 572 (1975); Rosenberger v. American Family Insurance Co., 309 N.W.2d 305, 308 (Minn.1981). | 2 | 2 |
Dunshee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen2 sentences1983See Dunshee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 303 Minn. 473, 482 , 228 N.W.2d 567, 572 (1975); Rosenberger v. American Family Insurance Co., 309 N.W.2d 305, 308 (Minn.1981). 1983See Dunshee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 303 Minn. 473, 482 , 228 N.W.2d 567, 572 (1975); Rosenberger v. American Family Insurance Co., 309 N.W.2d 305, 308 (Minn.1981). | 2 | 2 |
Woog v. Home Mutual Indemnity Co.green2 sentences1989Woog, 340 N.W.2d at 866 . 1985Woog v. Home Mutual Indemnity Co., 340 N.W.2d 863, 865 (Minn.1983). | 1 | 2 |
Johnson v. Piper Jaffray, Inc.green1 sentence2004Johnson v. Piper Jajfray, Inc., 530 N.W.2d 790, 795 (Minn.1995); Ateas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of Am., 292 Minn. 334, 341 , 197 N.W.2d 448, 452 (1972); Layne-Minnesota Co. v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 266 Minn. 284, 289 , 123 N.W.2d 371, 375-76 (1963). | 1 | 1 |
Minnesota Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 495green1 sentence1984The test for determining whether a grievance is arbitrable is set forth in Minnesota Education Association v. Independent School District No. 495, 290 N.W.2d 627, 629 (Minn.1980), quoting from Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp., 292 Minn. 334, 341 , 197 N.W.2d 448, 452 (1972): (1) If the parties evinced a clear intent to arbitrate a controversy arising out of specific provisions of the contract, the matter is for the arbitrators to determine and not the court. (2) If the intention of the parties is reasonably debatable as to the scope of the arbitration clause, the issue of arbitrability is to be | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Har-Mar, Incorporated v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc.
green
2 sentences1977See, also, Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of America, 292 Minn. 334 , 197 N. W. 2d 448 (1972); Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc. 300 Minn. 149 , 218 N. W. 2d 751 (1974). 1977See, also, Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of America, 292 Minn. 334 , 197 N. W. 2d 448 (1972); Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc. 300 Minn. 149 , 218 N. W. 2d 751 (1974). | 2 | 1975–1977 |
Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.
green
2 sentences1989Also, in applying “general state-law principles of contract interpretation to the interpretation of an arbitration agreement within the scope of the Act, * * * due regard must be given to the federal policy favoring arbitration, and ambiguities as to the scope of the arbitration clause itself resolved in favor of arbitration.” Id., — U.S.-, 109 S.Ct. at 1254 . 1989Also, in applying “general state-law principles of contract interpretation to the interpretation of an arbitration agreement within the scope of the Act, * * * due regard must be given to the federal policy favoring arbitration, and ambiguities as to the scope of the arbitration clause itself resolved in favor of arbitration.” Id., — U.S.-, 109 S.Ct. at 1254 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Myers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1989Id. (citations omitted). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Fruchtman
green
1 sentence1983We held that where insurance coverage is preconditioned on establishing certain facts, the factual dispute should be tried and resolved by the trial court and, if the preconditions are not established, then the policy does not provide coverage and arbitration would be unauthorized. 263 N.W.2d at 71 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Matter of Markley
green
1 sentence1983On the cross-motions to affirm and to vacate the award, the trial court then had before it, for its own de novo review, the question of whether the arbitration panel had exceeded its powers, i.e., whether the scope of the arbitration clause conferred on the arbitrators the authority to decide the issues of coverage, stacking, and set-off. *866 As we did in Matter of Markley, 298 N.W.2d 27 (Minn.1980), we must remand to the district court for a de novo review. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Berthiaume
green
1 sentence1979The standards for determining arbitrability were clearly set out in Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of America, 292 Minn. 334, 341 , 197 N.W.2d 448, 452 (1972), as follows: “ * * * (1) If the parties evinced a clear intent to arbitrate a controversy arising out of specific provisions of the contract, the matter is for the arbitrators to determine and not the court. (2) If the intention of the parties is reasonably debatable as to the scope of the arbitration clause, the issue of arbitrability is to be initially determined by the arbitrators subject to the rights of either party reserved under M | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.