Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 572.16 (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[Repealed]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MS 2010 [Repealed, 2010 c 264 art 1 s 32]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 17
cases, 1979–2018 · leading case: All Metro Supply, Inc. v. Warner, 707 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).
All Metro Supply, Inc. v. Warner, 707 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). “Because the statute does not permit submission to the arbitrator for clarification after the 20-day time limits set forth in Minn.Stat. § 572.16, subd. 3 (2004) have expired, and the district court was required to confirm the original arbitration award, we reverse and remand for…”
Menahga Educ. Ass'n v. Menahga Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 821, 568 N.W.2d 863 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). “See Minn.Stat. § 572.16, subd. 2 (1996) (“If an application to the court is pending under section 572.”
Crosby-Ironton Fed'n of Teachers, Local 1325 v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 182, 285 N.W.2d 667 (Minn. 1979). “Under Minn.Stat. § 572.16 (1978), did the trial court properly refuse to resubmit this matter to the arbitrator for correction and/or clarification? 2.”
Hilltop Constr., Inc. v. Lou Park Apts., 324 N.W.2d 236 (Minn. 1982). “Therefore, Lou Park’s request goes beyond mere clarification as provided by Minn.Stat. § 572.16 (1980). 5 With respect to the liquidated damage claims, the rate of interest, extras, allowances for setoffs for unfinished work and like items, the district court undoubtedly had the…”
Nat'l Indem. Co. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 348 N.W.2d 748 (Minn. 1984). “Under the arbitration statute, chapter 572, when an award has been made, a party may apply for: a modification or correction of the award of the arbitrators, §§ 572.16 & .20; may seek an order confirming the award, § 572.”
Mark Herll v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 879 F.3d 293 (8th Cir. 2018). “at 4 ; see Minn. Stat. § 572.16 (2), (3) (repealed Aug.”
Weaver v. State Farm Ins. Companies, 609 N.W.2d 878 (Minn. 2000). “To achieve the purpose of the No-Fault Act in expediting resolution of claims, we urge arbitrators to indicate whether the award rests on a finding concerning reasonableness or on a legal determination.”
W. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 797 N.W.2d 201 (Minn. 2011). “…fail to give reasons for their decisions, they run the risk that they will be compelled to clarify their awards. See Minn. Stat. § 572.16 (2010).”
Teaching License of Falgren v. State, Bd. of Teaching, 545 N.W.2d 901 (Minn. 1996). “*907 § 572.16, subd. 1 (barring, effectively, any review of the arbitrator’s findings of fact) with Minn.”
Hedlund v. Citizens Sec. Mut. Ins. Co., 377 N.W.2d 460 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “If these costs are not awarded by the arbitrators pursuant to § 572.”
Kersting v. Royal-Milbank Ins., 456 N.W.2d 270 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). “The proper procedure would have been to seek a modification or correction of the award under Minn.Stat. § 572.16. National Indemnity Co.”
In Re the Arbitration Between Hunter, Keith Indus., Inc. v. Piper Capital Mgmt. Inc., 575 N.W.2d 850 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). “Third, Hunter, Keith contends that Piper waived its right to oppose the arbitrators’ punitive damages award by failing to make a timely request for correction or modification under Minn.Stat. § 572.16, subd. 1 (1996). We reject this argument because Piper properly moved to…”
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.