Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 572.18 (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[Repealed]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MS 2010 [Repealed, 2010 c 264 art 1 s 32]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 43
cases, 1974–2014 · 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). “Instead, the district court’s authority to submit a modification or correction to the arbitrator is limited by Minn.Stat. § 572.16, subd.”
Ray v. City of Maple Grove, 519 N.W.2d 466 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). “Ray argues that the district court's decision should be reversed because the first interpretation is correct; the city argues, and the district court agreed, that the second interpretation is correct.”
Arbitration Between Metro. Airports Comm'n v. Metro. Airports Police Fed'n, 443 N.W.2d 519 (Minn. 1989). “10; confirming awards, Minn.Stat. § 572.18; vacating or modifying awards, Minn.”
Hilltop Constr., Inc. v. Lou Park Apts., 324 N.W.2d 236 (Minn. 1982). “Hilltop then requested the Hennepin County District Court to confirm the award under Minn.Stat. § 572.18 (1980). On July 29, 1981, the district court confirmed the award but determined that Hilltop could make no claim against Lou Park for attorneys fees.”
Kersting v. Royal-Milbank Ins., 456 N.W.2d 270 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). “Following issuance of the award, the Kerstings commenced an action pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 572.18 (1988) seeking trial court confirmation of the arbitrators’ award and post-award interest on that amount through the time of entry of judgment.”
Abd Alla v. Mourssi, 680 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). “” Minn.Stat. § 572.18 (2002). Section 572.18 unambiguously requires the district court to confirm the arbitration award unless grounds to vacate or modify the award are properly brought before the court.”
Principal Fin. Grp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 472 N.W.2d 338 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “Minn.Stat. § 572.18 (1988) says: Upon application of a party, the court shall confirm an award, unless within the time limits hereinafter imposed grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in sections…”
QBE Ins. Corp. v. Twin Homes of French Ridge Homeowners Ass'n, 778 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). “Minn.Stat. § 572.18. The district court “shall” vacate the award, among other grounds, if “[t]he arbitrators exceeded their powers.”
Schmidt v. Midwest Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 426 N.W.2d 870 (Minn. 1988). “Schmidt’s motion in the district court for confirmation of the award pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 572.18 (1986), was not only objected to by Midwest but it, in turn, as authorized by the policy, asserted its policy right for a trial de novo.”
Murray v. Puls, 690 N.W.2d 337 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). “18 (2002) provides: “Upon application of a party, the court shall confirm an award, unless within the time limits hereinafter imposed grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in sections 572.”
Card v. Stratton Oakmont, Inc., 933 F. Supp. 806 (D. Minnesota 1996). “§ 9 (FAA) and Minn.Stat. §§ 572.18 and .21. In response, Respondents move the Court for an order vacating the award on various grounds pursuant to Section 10 of the FAA, as well as on the basis of manifest disregard of law.”
Kowler Assocs. v. Ross, 544 N.W.2d 800 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). “Minn.Stat. § 572.18 (1994). In such cases, the court shall proceed as provided in sections 572.”
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.