Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Grudem Brothers Co. v. Great Western Piping Corp., 213 N.W.2d 920.

35 citing documents.

The Jamar Company v. Independent School District No. 2142, St. Louis County Schools, Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Jamar Company v. Independent School District No. 2142, St. Louis County Schools, Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Grudem Bros. Co. v. Great W. Piping Corp., 297 Minn. 313, 316, -23 (1973).
University of Minnesota v. Woolley 659 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
University of Minnesota v. Woolley 659 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Grudem Bros. Co. v. Great W. Piping Corp., 297 Minn. 313, 316 , (noting that attempts to waive right to attorney provided in UAA “prior to the proceeding or hearing [are] ineffective”).
Ray v. City of Maple Grove 519 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Ray v. City of Maple Grove 519 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
We typically review section 572.18 appeals under the extremely narrow standard set forth in Grudem Bros. Co. v. Great Western Piping *469 Corp., 297 Minn. 313
Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc. 452 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1990
Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc. 452 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1990
State, by Sundquist v. Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees Union Local No. 320, Grudem Bros. Co. v. Great Western Piping Corp., 297 Minn. 313, 316-17 , -23 (1973).
David Co. v. Jim W. Miller Construction, Inc. 444 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1989
David Co. v. Jim W. Miller Construction, Inc. 444 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1989
See Cournoyer v. American Television & Radio Co., 249 Minn. 577, 580 , (footnote omitted); Grudem Bros. Co. v. Great Western Piping Corp., 297 Minn. 313, 316 , E.D.S.
Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc. 437 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Littfin Lumber Co. v. Fasching 436 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Littfin Lumber Co. v. Fasching 436 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(quoting Grudem Brothers Co. v. Great Western Piping Corp., 297 Minn. 313, 316 , ).
Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc. 437 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Second, the court in Grudem Brothers Co. v. Great Western Piping Corp., 297 Minn. 313 , confirms that an arbitration award may be considered a final judgment, noting: The arbitrators make the final determination of all questions submitted to them whether legal or factual.
Arbitration Between Minnesota State Patrol Troopers Ass'n Ex Rel. Pince v. State, Department of Public Safety 437 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
David Co. v. Jim W. Miller Construction, Inc. 428 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
David Co. v. Jim W. Miller Construction, Inc. 428 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Grudem Brothers Co. v. Great Western Piping Corp., 297 Minn. 313, 316-17 , E.D.S.
Independent School District No. 51 v. School Service Employees Union Local 284 428 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Independent School District No. 51 v. School Service Employees Union Local 284 428 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Grudem Brothers Co. v. Great Western Piping Corp., 297 Minn. 313, 316-17 , see also E.D.S.
Gruman v. Hendrickson 416 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gruman v. Hendrickson 416 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Grudem Brothers Co. v. Great Western Piping Corp., 297 Minn. 313, 316 , -23 (1973).
E.D.S. Construction Co. v. North End Health Center, Inc. 412 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
E.D.S. Construction Co. v. North End Health Center, Inc. 412 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Grudem Brothers Co. v. Great Western Piping Corp., 297 Minn. 313, 316-17
Koranda v. Austin Mutual Insurance Co. 397 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Koranda v. Austin Mutual Insurance Co. 397 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Its memorandum contains the following quote from Grudem Brothers Co. v. Great Western Piping Corp., 297 Minn. 313 , : The arbitrators make the final determination of all questions submitted to them whether legal or factual.
Afscme Dist. Coun. 96 v. Ind. Sch. Dist. 381 351 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In re Arbitration between AFSCME District Council 96 & Independent School District 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
at 483 (quoting Grudem Bros. Co. v. Great Western Piping Corp., 297 Minn. 313, 316 , ).
In re Arbitration between AFSCME District Council 96 & Independent School District No. 381, Two Harbors 351 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
at 483 (quoting Grudem Bros. Co. v. Great Western Piping Corp., 297 Minn. 313, 316 , ).
State v. Berthiaume 259 N.W.2d 904 Minn. 1977
State v. Berthiaume 259 N.W.2d 904 Minn. 1977
Corp., 347 Mass. 254 , 197 N.E.2d 598 (1964); Cf. Grudem Brothers Co. v. Great Western Piping Corp., 297 Minn. 313
Eric A. Carlstrom Construction Co. v. Independent School District No. 77 256 N.W.2d 479 Minn. 1977
Eric A. Carlstrom Construction Co. v. Independent School District No. 77 256 N.W.2d 479 Minn. 1977
Thus, the standard to be applied in reviewing arbitration awards is a narrow one and was set forth conclusively in Grudem Brothers Co. v. Great Western Piping Corp., 297 Minn. 313, 316 , as follows: “The arbitrators make the final determination of all questions submitted to them whether legal or factual.
Mork & Associates, Inc. v. Jackson 231 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1975
Mork & Associates, Inc. v. Jackson 231 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1975
The case of Grudem Brothers Co. v. Great Western Piping Corp. 297 Minn. 313 , is conclusively determinative of the standard to be employed by the court in reviewing arbitration awards.