Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 572.09 (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[Repealed]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MS 2010 [Repealed, 2010 c 264 art 1 s 32]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 85
cases, 1963–2018 · leading case: Seagate Tech., LLC v. W. Digit. Corp., Sining Mao, 854 N.W.2d 750 (Minn. 2014).
Seagate Tech., LLC v. W. Digit. Corp., Sining Mao, 854 N.W.2d 750 (Minn. 2014). “1(3)-(4) (2010),1 1 Effective August 1, 2011, Minn. Stat. §§ 572.09 , 572.12, and 572.19 (2010) were repealed and replaced with Minn.”
Sand v. Sch. Serv. Employees Union, Local 284, 402 N.W.2d 183 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “Minn.Stat. § 572.09 (1986). An order compelling arbitration stays pending judicial proceedings in the following manner: Any action or proceeding involving an issue subject to arbitration shall be stayed if an order for arbitration or an application therefor has been made under…”
Michael-Curry Companies v. Knutson Shareholders Liquidating Trust, 449 N.W.2d 139 (Minn. 1989). “The Trust filed a cross-motion requesting a stay of arbitration pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 572.09 (1988) pending trial court resolution of the fraud in the inducement claim.”
Arbitration Between Metro. Airports Comm'n v. Metro. Airports Police Fed'n, 443 N.W.2d 519 (Minn. 1989). “Court involvement in arbitration is specifically limited to compelling or staying arbitration, Minn. Stat. § 572.09 ; appointing arbitrators where necessary, Minn.”
Bros. Jurewicz, Inc. v. Atari, Inc., 296 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. 1980). “Atari’s first argument is based on Minn.Stat. § 572.09(a) (1978), which provides: *426 On application of a party showing an agreement [to arbitrate] and the opposing party’s refusal to arbitrate, the court shall order the parties to proceed with arbitration, but if the opposing…”
Freeman v. Duluth Clinic, Ltd., 334 N.W.2d 626 (Minn. 1983). “" To the same effect, Minn.Stat. § 572.09(a) (1982) provides that a court may order a party to arbitration except that, "if the opposing party denies the existence of agreement to arbitrate, the court shall proceed summarily to the determination of the issue so raised * * *.”
Layne-Minnesota Co. v. Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota, 123 N.W.2d 371 (Minn. 1963). “1, provides: “Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award where: # “( 3) The arbitrators exceeded their powers; * * * * * "(5) There was no arbitration agreement and the issue was not adversely determined in proceedings under section 572.09 and the party did not…”
Minnesota Fed'n of Teachers, Local 331 v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 361, 310 N.W.2d 482 (Minn. 1981). “The union filed this motion to compel arbitration pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 572.09 (1980) after the school district took the position that the board's action was a matter of inherent managerial policy and thus was not subject to arbitration.”
Michael-Curry Companies v. Knutson Shareholders Liquidating Trust, 434 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). “The Trust filed a cross-motion for an order staying arbitration pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 572.09 (b) pending a resolution by the trial court of the Trust's fraud claim.”
AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Reg'l Corr. Bd., 356 N.W.2d 295 (Minn. 1984). “12, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party; or (5) There was no arbitration agreement and the issue was not adversely determined in proceedings under section 572.09 and the party did not participate in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection; But the…”
Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc., 452 N.W.2d 648 (Minn. 1990). “Had they waived that right by their actions, no agreement to arbitrate would have existed resulting in lack of jurisdiction in the court to stay arbitration under Minn.Stat. § 572.09(b) (1988). We held the parties had not waived their contracted for arbitration right.”
Arbitration Between Ramsey Cnty. v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, Council 91, Local 8, 309 N.W.2d 785 (Minn. 1981). “12, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party; or (5) There was no arbitration agreement and the issue was not adversely determined in the proceedings under section 572.09 and the party did not participate in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection.”
— Minn. Stat. § 572.09(a) — 28 cases
Freeman v. Duluth Clinic, Ltd., 334 N.W.2d 626 (Minn. 1983). “" To the same effect, Minn.Stat. § 572.09(a) (1982) provides that a court may order a party to arbitration except that, "if the opposing party denies the existence of agreement to arbitrate, the court shall proceed summarily to the determination of the issue so raised * * *.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 666 N.W.2d 334 (Minn. 2003).
Minnesota Fed'n of Teachers, Local 331 v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 361, 310 N.W.2d 482 (Minn. 1981). “The union filed this motion to compel arbitration pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 572.09 (1980) after the school district took the position that the board's action was a matter of inherent managerial policy and thus was not subject to arbitration.”
Local No. 1119, Am. Fed'n State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees v. Mesabi Reg'l Med. Ctr., 463 N.W.2d 290 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
Bros. Jurewicz, Inc. v. Atari, Inc., 296 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. 1980). “Atari’s first argument is based on Minn.Stat. § 572.09(a) (1978), which provides: *426 On application of a party showing an agreement [to arbitrate] and the opposing party’s refusal to arbitrate, the court shall order the parties to proceed with arbitration, but if the opposing…”
— Minn. Stat. § 572.09(b) — 15 cases
Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc., 452 N.W.2d 648 (Minn. 1990). “Had they waived that right by their actions, no agreement to arbitrate would have existed resulting in lack of jurisdiction in the court to stay arbitration under Minn.Stat. § 572.09(b) (1988). We held the parties had not waived their contracted for arbitration right.”
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Servs., P.A., 607 N.W.2d 440 (Minn. 2000).
Michael-Curry Companies v. Knutson Shareholders Liquidating Trust, 449 N.W.2d 139 (Minn. 1989). “The Trust filed a cross-motion requesting a stay of arbitration pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 572.09 (1988) pending trial court resolution of the fraud in the inducement claim.”
Arbitration Between Metro. Airports Comm'n v. Metro. Airports Police Fed'n, 443 N.W.2d 519 (Minn. 1989). “Court involvement in arbitration is specifically limited to compelling or staying arbitration, Minn. Stat. § 572.09 ; appointing arbitrators where necessary, Minn.”
Kowler Assocs. v. Ross, 544 N.W.2d 800 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
— Minn. Stat. § 572.09(d) — 4 cases
Sand v. Sch. Serv. Employees Union, Local 284, 402 N.W.2d 183 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “Minn.Stat. § 572.09 (1986). An order compelling arbitration stays pending judicial proceedings in the following manner: Any action or proceeding involving an issue subject to arbitration shall be stayed if an order for arbitration or an application therefor has been made under…”
Bros. Jurewicz, Inc. v. Atari, Inc., 296 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. 1980). “Atari’s first argument is based on Minn.Stat. § 572.09(a) (1978), which provides: *426 On application of a party showing an agreement [to arbitrate] and the opposing party’s refusal to arbitrate, the court shall order the parties to proceed with arbitration, but if the opposing…”
Layne-Minnesota Co. v. Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota, 123 N.W.2d 371 (Minn. 1963). “1, provides: “Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award where: # “( 3) The arbitrators exceeded their powers; * * * * * "(5) There was no arbitration agreement and the issue was not adversely determined in proceedings under section 572.09 and the party did not…”
Woischke v. Stursberg & Fine, Inc., 920 N.W.2d 419 (Minn. 2018).
— Minn. Stat. § 572.09(e) — 5 cases
Bros. Jurewicz, Inc. v. Atari, Inc., 296 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. 1980). “Atari’s first argument is based on Minn.Stat. § 572.09(a) (1978), which provides: *426 On application of a party showing an agreement [to arbitrate] and the opposing party’s refusal to arbitrate, the court shall order the parties to proceed with arbitration, but if the opposing…”
Churchill Env't & Indus. Equity Partners, L.P. v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P., 643 N.W.2d 333 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002).
Local No. 1119, Am. Fed'n State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees v. Mesabi Reg'l Med. Ctr., 463 N.W.2d 290 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
Prod. Credit Ass'n of Worthington v. Spring Water Dairy Farm, Inc., 392 N.W.2d 15 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
Churchill Envir. Partners v. Ernst & Young, 643 N.W.2d 333 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002).
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.