Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 572.10 (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[Repealed]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MS 2010 [Repealed, 2010 c 264 art 1 s 32]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 9
cases, 1968–2013 · leading case: Ronning v. Citizens Sec. Mut. Ins. Co., 557 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
Ronning v. Citizens Sec. Mut. Ins. Co., 557 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). “Thus, as a result of the insurer’s inaction, respondent, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 572.10, moved the district court to select attorney Michael Tierney as insurer’s arbitrator.”
Arbitration Between Ramsey Cnty. v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, Council 91, Local 8, 309 N.W.2d 785 (Minn. 1981). “The majority opinion, setting the stage for a different result, frames the issue in these terms: The sole issue before this court on appeal is: did the arbitrator exceed his powers within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 572.10, subd. 1(3) (1980) in issuing an award based upon the…”
Arbitration Between Metro. Airports Comm'n v. Metro. Airports Police Fed'n, 443 N.W.2d 519 (Minn. 1989). “09 ; appointing arbitrators where necessary, Minn.Stat. § 572.10; confirming awards, Minn.”
Seagate Tech., LLC v. W. Digit. Corp., 834 N.W.2d 555 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). “The UAA provides the district court with discretion to order a rehearing before the same or different arbitrators: In vacating the award on grounds other than stated in clause (5) of subdivision 1, the court may order a rehearing before new arbitrators chosen as provided in the…”
Leek v. Am. Express Prop. Cas., 591 N.W.2d 507 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). “Rule 38 of the no-fault rules states the “provisions of Minn.Stat. 572.10 through 572.26 shall apply to the confirmation, vacation, modification or correction of award issued hereunder.”
Johnson v. Vill. of Plymouth, 180 N.W.2d 184 (Minn. 1970). “§ 572.10 with § 179.57 and § 179.571 in the orders issued by Judge Weeks, as a means of utilizing the procedures of the Arbitration Act in the conduct of the hearing which he ordered.”
Lisa A. Smith v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n, Inc. & Argenbright, Inc., 233 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 2000). “Smith’s invocation of the Minnesota statute is frivolous, first, because the invocation is premature; second, because the choice of law provision in the stock purchase agreement does not appear in the arbitration clause but is instead a direction to the arbitrators as to what…”
Johnson v. Vill. of Plymouth, 161 N.W.2d 306 (Minn. 1968). “§ 572.10, so that the panel shall follow procedures of the Uniform Arbitration Act.”
Bakk v. Principal Fin. Sec., Inc., 892 F. Supp. 1206 (D. Minnesota 1995). “Factual and Procedural Background This action was initially commenced in the Minnesota District Court for the Sixth Judicial District in order to obtain the appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 572.10, Subdivision 1. By Notice of Removal filed on…”
— Minn. Stat. § 572.10(1) — 1 case
Lisa A. Smith v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n, Inc. & Argenbright, Inc., 233 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 2000). “Smith’s invocation of the Minnesota statute is frivolous, first, because the invocation is premature; second, because the choice of law provision in the stock purchase agreement does not appear in the arbitration clause but is instead a direction to the arbitrators as to what…”
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.