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

Minn. Stat. § 572.19 (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[Repealed]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MS 2010 [Repealed, 2010 c 264 art 1 s 32]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 144 cases, 1963–2016 · 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 134× “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 Cnty. v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, Council 91, Local 8, 309 N.W.2d 785 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 20× “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, Dep't of Pub. Saf., 437 N.W.2d 670 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 20× “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 Metro. Airports Comm'n v. Metro. Airports Police Fed'n, 443 N.W.2d 519 (Minn. 1989). · cites it 16× “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., 446 N.W.2d 372 (Minn. 1989). · cites it 8× “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., 685 N.W.2d 12 (Minn. 2004). · cites it 10× “" 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 Ins. Co., 720 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 20× “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. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 309 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 12× “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 Reg'l Corr. Bd., 356 N.W.2d 295 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 8× “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, Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 352 N.W.2d 731 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 10× “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 Ins. Co. of Am. v. Stariha, 346 N.W.2d 663 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 12× “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 Cnty., 680 N.W.2d 560 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 16× “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.”
Show all 144 citing cases →
— Minn. Stat. § 572.19(1)(3) — 3 cases
Hayne, Miller & Farni, Inc. v. Flume, 888 F. Supp. 949 (E.D. Wis. 1995).
In re Arbitration between AFSCME Dist. Council 96 & Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 381, Two Harbors, 351 N.W.2d 33 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).
Afscme Dist. Coun. 96 v. Ind. Sch. Dist. 381, 351 N.W.2d 33 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).
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.