Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 572. ARBITRATION; MEDIATION
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 572.12 (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[Repealed]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MS 2010 [Repealed, 2010 c 264 art 1 s 32]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 10 cases, 1977–2014 · leading case: Seagate Tech., LLC v. W. Digit. Corp., Sining Mao, 854 N.W.2d 750 (Minn. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Seagate Tech., LLC v. W. Digit. Corp., Sining Mao, 854 N.W.2d 750 (Minn. 2014). · cites it 34× “” Minn. Stat. § 572.12 (b) (2010). The district court concluded that the arbitrator’s decision to preclude Western Digital and Mao’s evidence on Trade Secrets 4-6 constituted a failure to hear material evidence in violation of Minn.”
AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Reg'l Corr. Bd., 356 N.W.2d 295 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 4× “n arbitrator as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party; (3) The arbitrators exceeded their powers; (4) The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear…”
Arbitration Between Ramsey Cnty. v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, Council 91, Local 8, 309 N.W.2d 785 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 4× “n arbitrator as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party; (3) The arbitrators exceeded their powers; (4) The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear…”
Volkmann v. Volkmann, 688 N.W.2d 347 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 11× “” The correspondence did not indicate that the parties waived their right to the hearing prescribed by Minn.Stat. § 572.12 (2002). The arbitrator did not conduct a hearing, but instead met with each party separately.”
Anderson v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 465 N.W.2d 68 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 572.12(a). We find the legislature intended to make the arbitrators' award unenforceable unless the act's few technical requirements are met.”
Teaching License of Falgren v. State, Bd. of Teaching, 545 N.W.2d 901 (Minn. 1996). · cites it 2× “or appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party; (3) The arbitrators exceeded their powers; (4) The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear…”
Seagate Tech., LLC v. W. Digit. Corp., 834 N.W.2d 555 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “or appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party; (3) The arbitrators exceeded their powers; (4) The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear…”
In Re Arbitration Between Hennen & St. Paul Mercury Ins., 250 N.W.2d 840 (Minn. 1977). · cites it 2× “appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party; “(3) The arbitrators exceeded their powers; “(4) The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear…”
Abd Alla v. Mourssi, 680 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “or appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party; (3) The arbitrators exceeded their powers; (4) The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear…”
AFSCME Council 65, Local Union No. 667, Aitkin Cnty. Courthouse Employees v. Aitkin Cnty., 357 N.W.2d 432 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “The law in Minnesota is absolutely clear that where the parties have bargained for arbitration, the arbitrator is the final judge of both law and fact with respect to the merits of a dispute, in the absence of any agreement limiting his authority.”
— Minn. Stat. § 572.12(a) — 2 cases
Anderson v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 465 N.W.2d 68 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “Minn.Stat. § 572.12(a). We find the legislature intended to make the arbitrators' award unenforceable unless the act's few technical requirements are met.”
Volkmann v. Volkmann, 688 N.W.2d 347 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). “” The correspondence did not indicate that the parties waived their right to the hearing prescribed by Minn.Stat. § 572.12 (2002). The arbitrator did not conduct a hearing, but instead met with each party separately.”
— Minn. Stat. § 572.12(b) — 2 cases
Anderson v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 465 N.W.2d 68 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “Minn.Stat. § 572.12(a). We find the legislature intended to make the arbitrators' award unenforceable unless the act's few technical requirements are met.”
Volkmann v. Volkmann, 688 N.W.2d 347 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). “” The correspondence did not indicate that the parties waived their right to the hearing prescribed by Minn.Stat. § 572.12 (2002). The arbitrator did not conduct a hearing, but instead met with each party separately.”
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.