Minn. Stat. § 572.19
[Repealed]
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MS 2010 [Repealed, 2010 c 264 art 1 s 32]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 144
cases, 1963–2016 · leading case: Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, Sining Mao
Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, Sining Mao (2014)
“Challenges to an arbitration award brought under Minn. Stat. § 572.19 , subd. 1(3)-(4) (2010), do not require an objection as a condition precedent to the challenge.”
Arbitration Between Ramsey County v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 91, Local 8 (1981)
“The sole issue before this court on appeal is: did the arbitrator exceed his powers within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 572.19, subd. 1(3) (1980) in issuing an award based upon the past practice of the parties where the practice conflicts with the clear and unambiguous language…”
Arbitration Between Minnesota State Patrol Troopers Ass'n Ex Rel. Pince v. State, Department of Public Safety (1989)
“If the evidence obtained through the search of Pince's home is suppressed, does the remaining evidence support the arbitrator's decision? DISCUSSION I Arbitration proceedings in Minnesota are governed by Minn.Stat.”
Arbitration Between Metropolitan Airports Commission v. Metropolitan Airports Police Federation (1989)
“18; vacating or modifying awards, Minn.Stat. § 572.19 and 572.20; and enforcing awards through entry of judgment, Minn.”
L & H AIRCO, INC. v. Rapistan Corp. (1989)
“L & H then brought a motion before the district court to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 572.19 (1988). Although the trial court found no evidence of actual bias in the arbitrators' decision, it was convinced that the fact of undisclosed social and…”
Kline v. Berg Drywall, Inc. (2004)
“" Minn.Stat. § 572.19. subd. 1. Further, the procedure for seeking review under the MUAA is a petition to the district court, which generally is to be filed within 90 days after receiving a copy of the award.”
In Re the Claims for No-Fault Benefits Against Progressive Insurance Co. (2006)
“Minn.Stat. § 572.19, subd. 1 (2004). Whether an arbi *870 trator exceeded his or her authority is a question of law, which we review de novo.”
Rosenberger v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. (1981)
“The Twomey court did indicate, however, that objections relating to arbitrability would be preserved pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 572.19 (1980). This statement is consistent with the court's statement in Layne-Minnesota Co.”
AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Board (1984)
“In the former, the standard is whether the decision was arbitrary and capricious and without substantial support in the record while in the latter, an award will be vacated only upon proof of one or more of the grounds stated in Minn.Stat. § 572.19 (1982), [8] and not because…”
Eisen v. State, Department of Public Welfare (1984)
“The threshold issue is whether, under Minn.Stat. § 572.19 (1982), Eisen has standing as a “party” to seek vacation of the arbitration award.”
Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Stariha (1984)
“Appellant claims that failure to disclose existence of an attorney-client relationship between the neutral arbitrator, Robert Austin, and respondent’s attorney, Richard Hunegs of the DeParcq law firm, constitutes “fraud or other undue means” or “evident partiality” requiring…”
Allen v. Hennepin County (2004)
“The district court applied the 90-day statute of limitations in Minn.Stat. § 572.19, subd. 2 (2002), for vacating arbitration awards under the Uniform Arbitration Act and dismissed appellant's claims as untimely.”
— Minn. Stat. § 572.19(1)(3) — 3 cases
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.