Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Berthiaume, 259 N.W.2d 904.

142 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Minnesota Judicial Branch, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
However, in conducting de novo review of an arbitrator’s determination of arbitrability, the district c ourt may receive “evidence in addition to that presente d to the arbitrator.” State v. Berthiaume
Itasca County, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Minn. Stat. § 572B.23(a)(4) (2020); see State v. Berthiaume , (“[O]nly when it is established that an arbitrator has clearl y exceeded [the arbitrator’s] powers under the agreement to submit a dispute to arbitra tion must a court vacate an award.”).
Peterson v. City of Minneapolis 892 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2017
Peterson v. City of Minneapolis 892 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2017
(“[W]ith respect to the issue of the merits of the dispute it is well settled that ‘an arbitrator, in the absence of any agreement limiting his authority, is the final judge of both law and fact, including the interpretation of the terms of any contract.’ ” (footnotes omitted) (quoting Cournoyer v. A
Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corp. 834 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corp. 834 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Airports Police Fed’n, (); (emphasizing that “arbitrators are the final *565 judges of both law and fact”); MAPE, d at 754 ; David Co., d at 840 (same); Park Constr.
Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. Star Windshield Repair, Inc. 743 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. Star Windshield Repair, Inc. 743 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(stating that arbitrator should decide issue of whether dispute is arbitrable if issue is reasonably debatable); Cmty.
Klinefelter v. Crum & Forster Insurance Co. 675 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Klinefelter v. Crum & Forster Insurance Co. 675 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
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
(addressing arbitration provisions in public collective bargaining agreement); (holding district court has subject-matter jurisdiction to decide arbitration issue raised by public employee), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Wolfer v. Microboards Manufacturing, LLC 654 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Wolfer v. Microboards Manufacturing, LLC 654 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sankey 605 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sankey 605 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
EEC Property Co. v. Kaplan 578 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
EEC Property Co. v. Kaplan 578 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re the Arbitration Between Hunter, Keith Industries, Inc. v. Piper Capital Management Inc. 575 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re the Arbitration Between Hunter, Keith Industries, Inc. v. Piper Capital Management Inc. 575 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
A court may vacate an arbitration award only when “it is established that arbitrators have clearly exceeded their powers[.]” State Office of State Auditor, d at 754 ().
Menahga Education Ass'n v. Menahga Independent School District No. 821 568 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Menahga Education Ass'n v. Menahga Independent School District No. 821 568 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In deciding the merits of a dispute, “an arbitrator, in the absence of any agreement limiting his authority, is the final judge of both law and fact.” (citations omitted).
City of Minneapolis v. Police Officers' Federation of Minneapolis 566 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
City of Minneapolis v. Police Officers' Federation of Minneapolis 566 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Heyer v. Moldenhauer 538 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Heyer v. Moldenhauer 538 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
County of Hennepin v. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Local 19 527 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1995
County of Hennepin v. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Local 19 527 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1995
State, Office of the State Auditor v. Minnesota Ass'n of Professional Employees 504 N.W.2d 751 Minn. 1993
State, Office of the State Auditor v. Minnesota Ass'n of Professional Employees 504 N.W.2d 751 Minn. 1993
Independent School District No. 88 v. School Service Employees Union Local 284 503 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 1993
Independent School District No. 88 v. School Service Employees Union Local 284 503 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 1993
In Re Grievance Arbitration Between Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. & City of Crosby 497 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Re Grievance Arbitration Between Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. & City of Crosby 497 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State, Office of the State Auditor v. Minnesota Ass'n of Professional Employees 493 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State, Office of the State Auditor v. Minnesota Ass'n of Professional Employees 493 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
“[I]n the absence of any agreement limiting his authority, [the arbitrator] is the final judge of both law and fact, including the interpretation of the terms of any contract.” Cournoyer v. American Television & Radio Co., 249 Minn. 577, 580
Arbitration Between Independent School District No. 88 v. School Service Employees Union Local 284 490 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Arbitration Between Independent School District No. 88 v. School Service Employees Union Local 284 490 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Welch v. Buller 481 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Welch v. Buller 481 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Duluth Police Local v. City of Duluth 466 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Duluth Police Local v. City of Duluth 466 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
County of Hennepin v. Hennepin County Ass'n of Paramedics & Emergency Medical Technicians 464 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
County of Hennepin v. Hennepin County Ass'n of Paramedics & Emergency Medical Technicians 464 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(quoting Cournoyer v. Am.
Local No. 1119, American Federation State, County, & Municipal Employees v. Mesabi Regional Medical Center 463 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Local No. 1119, American Federation State, County, & Municipal Employees v. Mesabi Regional Medical Center 463 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that the Uniform Arbitration Act “governs the authority and procedure for judicial interference with the arbitration process under either a private sector or public sector collective bargaining agreement containing an arbitration clause * *
Hanson v. Larson 459 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hanson v. Larson 459 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
see also International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Babcock & Wilcox, 826 F.2d 962 (10th Cir.1987) (union action to confirm an arbitration award where the employer was not allowed to move to vacate the arbitration award); Service Employees International Union v. Office Center Services, In
Mandich v. North Star Partnership 450 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Mandich v. North Star Partnership 450 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1990