Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corporation of America, 197 N.W.2d 448.

90 citing documents.

Juster Steel v. Carlson Companies 366 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of America, 292 Minn. 334 , the Minnesota Supreme Court listed five essential elements of fraud: (1) False representations; (2) made with the intent to deceive; (3) plaintiffs took action or refrained from taking action in reliance on these misstatements; (4) resulting in damages; (5) which are proximately caused by the
Berger v. Independent School District No. 706 362 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Berger v. Independent School District No. 706 362 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corporation of America, 292 Minn. 334, 347
Duluth Federation of Teachers, Local 692 v. Independent School District No. 709 361 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 1985
Duluth Federation of Teachers, Local 692 v. Independent School District No. 709 361 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 1985
See Ateas v. Credit *837 Clearing Corp. of America, 292 Minn. 334
Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local No. 17 v. Criterion Restaurant, Inc. 352 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local No. 17 v. Criterion Restaurant, Inc. 352 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
ATCAS v. Credit Clearing Corp. of America, 292 Minn. 334, 340-341
Mora Federation of Teachers, Local 1802 v. Independent School District 332 352 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Mora Federation of Teachers, Local 1802 v. Independent School District 332 352 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The test for determining whether a grievance is arbitrable is set forth in Minnesota Education Association v. Independent School District No. 495, quoting from Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp., 292 Minn. 334, 341 , : (1) If the parties evinced a clear intent to arbitrate a controversy arising out of specific provisions of the contract, the matter is for the arbitrators to determine and not the court.
NCR Credit Corp. v. Park Rapids Leasing Associates 349 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
NCR Credit Corp. v. Park Rapids Leasing Associates 349 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of America, 292 Minn. 334
Cloquet Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 94 344 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1984
Cloquet Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 94 344 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1984
Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corporation of America, 292 Minn. 334, 341
Myers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 336 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1983
Myers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 336 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1983
See also Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corporation of America, 292 Minn. 334, 336 , Minn.R.Civ.App.P.
Freeman v. Duluth Clinic, Ltd. 334 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1983
Freeman v. Duluth Clinic, Ltd. 334 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1983
§ 572.09(a) (1982) provides that a court may order a party to arbitration except that, “if the opposing party denies the existence of agreement to arbitrate, the court shall proceed summarily to the determination of the issue so raised * * We utilized section 572.09(a) in Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of America, 292 Minn. 334 , to hold that, where fraud in the inducement is alleged, the trial court must proceed to determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate that issue.
Hilltop Construction, Inc. v. Lou Park Apartments 324 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 1982
Hilltop Construction, Inc. v. Lou Park Apartments 324 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 1982
See Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of America, 292 Minn. 334
Thayer v. American Financial Advisers, Inc. 322 N.W.2d 599 Minn. 1982
Thayer v. American Financial Advisers, Inc. 322 N.W.2d 599 Minn. 1982
Both the issue of whether fraud in the inducement is subject to arbitration and the issue of severability were decided in Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp., 292 Minn. 334
McGrath v. State 312 N.W.2d 438 Minn. 1981
Minnesota Federation of Teachers, Local 331 v. Independent School District No. 361 310 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1981
Minnesota Federation of Teachers, Local 331 v. Independent School District No. 361 310 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1981
In Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of America, 292 Minn. 334 , we said: (1) If the parties evinced a clear intent to arbitrate a controversy arising out of specific provisions of the contract, the matter is for the arbitrators to determine and not the court.
Minnesota Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 495 290 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1980
Minnesota Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 495 290 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1980
Under our analysis, the act established the following rules for determination of the arbitrability of a grievance which, citing Layne-Minnesota Co. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, 266 Minn. 284 , we identified in Ateas v. Credit Clearing Corp., 292 Minn. 334 , : Hence, the following propositions may be stated: (1) If the parties evinced a clear intent to arbitrate a controversy arising out of specific provisions of the contract, the matter is for the arbitrators to determine and not t
Albert Lea Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 241 284 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1979
Albert Lea Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 241 284 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1979
The standards for determining arbitrability were clearly set out in Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of America, 292 Minn. 334, 341 , as follows: “ * * * (1) If the parties evinced a clear intent to arbitrate a controversy arising out of specific provisions of the contract, the matter is for the arbitrators to determine and not the court.
City of Brooklyn Center v. Minnesota Teamsters Public & Law Enforcement Employees Union Local No. 320 271 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 1978
City of Brooklyn Center v. Minnesota Teamsters Public & Law Enforcement Employees Union Local No. 320 271 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 1978
As this court stated in Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of America, 292 Minn. 334, 341 , : “ * * * (1) If the parties evinced a clear intent to arbitrate a controversy arising out of specific provisions of the contract, the matter is for the arbitrators to determine and not the court.
In Re Arbitration Between Hennen & St. Paul Mercury Insurance 250 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1977
In Re Arbitration Between Hennen & St. Paul Mercury Insurance 250 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1977
See, also, Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of America, 292 Minn. 334 , Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc. 300 Minn. 149
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission v. City of Minnetonka 242 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 1976
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission v. City of Minnetonka 242 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 1976
Layne-Minnesota Co. v. Regents of University of Minnesota, 266 Minn. 284, 288 , Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of America, 292 Minn. 334, 341 , Dunshee v. State Farm Mutual Auto.
Dunshee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 228 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1975
Dunshee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 228 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1975
1(3, 5), to challenge such determination subsequent to any award.” This rule was reaffirmed in our subsequent decisions in Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of America, 292 Minn. 334 , and Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc. 300 Minn. 149
EDEN LAND CORPORATION v. Minn-Kota Excavating, Inc. 223 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1974
EDEN LAND CORPORATION v. Minn-Kota Excavating, Inc. 223 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1974
The roles of the arbitrators and the courts in determining whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate an issue have been fully articulated in Layne-Minnesota Co. v. Regents of the University, 266 Minn. 284 , and Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of America, 292 Minn. 334
Grover-Dimond Associates, Inc. v. American Arbitration Ass'n 211 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1973
Grover-Dimond Associates, Inc. v. American Arbitration Ass'n 211 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1973
We do not in this state “intend to revive or encourage the historical common-law animosity toward arbitration in general.” Ateas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of America, 292 Minn. 334, 349