Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 572.08 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
MS 2010 [Repealed, 2010 c 264 art 1 s 32]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69
cases, 1959–2019 · leading case: Correll v. Distinctive Dental Servs., P.A., 607 N.W.2d 440 (Minn. 2000).
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Servs., P.A., 607 N.W.2d 440 (Minn. 2000). “08 of the arbitration act renders enforceable all written agreements to arbitrate except those that are revocable based on general principles of contract law: A written agreement to submit any existing controversy to arbitration or a provision in a written contract to submit to…”
Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F. Supp. 3d 1012 (D. Minnesota 2015). “, where applicable, and otherwise under the Minnesota Uniform Arbitration Act, Minn.Stat. § 572.08 et seq. *1024 Id. Having satisfied the prerequisites to employment, Montgomery was subsequently hired by Compass on or about February 2, 2008.”
Freeman v. Duluth Clinic, Ltd., 334 N.W.2d 626 (Minn. 1983). “Minnesota Statutes § 572.08 (1982) makes arbitration agreements enforceable "save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”
Siebert v. Amateur Athletic Union of United States, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (D. Minnesota 2006). “See Minn.Stat. § 572.08 (2004). 6 To the extent there is any conflict between the state and federal statutes, federal law preempts Minnesota law.”
Layne-Minnesota Co. v. Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota, 123 N.W.2d 371 (Minn. 1963). “09 provides: “(a) On application of a party showing an agreement described in section 572.08, and the opposing party’s refusal to arbitrate, the court shall order the parties to proceed with arbitration, but if the opposing party denies the existence of the agreement to…”
Anderson v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 465 N.W.2d 68 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “"The requirement that the arbitration clause be in writing * * * renders invalid mere oral arbitration agreements.”
Michael-Curry Companies v. Knutson Shareholders Liquidating Trust, 434 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). “Minn.Stat. § 572.08 (1986) makes arbitration agreements enforceable "save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation" of the contract.”
Michael-Curry Companies v. Knutson Shareholders Liquidating Trust, 449 N.W.2d 139 (Minn. 1989). “Minn.Stat. § 572.08 (1988) provides that written agreements or contract provisions to arbitrate are valid, enforceable, and irrevocable absent grounds for revocation of the contract.”
Univ. of Minnesota v. Woolley, 659 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). “” It states that the university and relator agree to submit the issues to “final and binding” arbitration pursuant to the university grievance procedure and that “both parties agree to be bound by the arbitration decision.”
Bros. Jurewicz, Inc. v. Atari, Inc., 296 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. 1980). “The Brothers Jurewicz contends that the Uniform Arbitration Act, specifically § 572.08, does not preclude a court from deciding preliminary issues such as waiver and laches.”
Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC., 669 N.W.2d 344 (Minn. 2003). “SHAL argues that the parties intended to arbitrate claims about the making of the contract, relying in part on an argument that "arising under" is broad enough to encompass Onvoy's claims. Reviewing the district court's analysis of this case highlights the status of Minnesota…”
Vaubel Farms, Inc. v. Shelby Farmers Mut., 679 N.W.2d 407 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). “” It also seems contrary to the broad language of the Uniform Arbitration Act, which provides that “[a] provision in a written contract to submit to arbitration any controversy thereafter arising between the parties is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.