Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Michael-Curry Companies v. Knutson Shareholders Liquidating Trust, 449 N.W.2d 139.

39 citing documents.

APX Construction Group, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Michael Mall, Inc., (quoting Michael-Curry Cos. v. Knutson S’holders Liquidating Tr., ).
Ryan Lynch, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
2021); see also Michael-Curry Cos. v. Knutson S’ holders Liquidating Tr., d 139, 141 (Minn. 1989) (noting that “arbitrability is to be determined by ascertaining the intention of the parties through examination of the language of the arbitration agreement” and that “[a] reviewing court is not bound by the trial court ’s interpretation of the arbitration agreement”).
Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, Sining Mao 854 N.W.2d 750 Minn. 2014
Elsenpeter v. St. Michael Mall, Inc. 794 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Elsenpeter v. St. Michael Mall, Inc. 794 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“The issue of arbitrability is to be determined by ascertaining the intention of the parties through examination of the language of the arbitration agreement.”
KILCHER v. Dale 784 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
KILCHER v. Dale 784 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Community Partners Designs, Inc. v. City of Lonsdale 697 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Community Partners Designs, Inc. v. City of Lonsdale 697 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
§ 572.09(a) (2004); Michael-Curry Co.
Allen v. Hennepin County 680 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Allen v. Hennepin County 680 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(stating that one of the fundamental objectives of the UAA is speedy resolution of labor disputes), aff'd, *565 (Minn.1989).
Peggy Rose Revocable Trust v. Eppich 640 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2002
Peggy Rose Revocable Trust v. Eppich 640 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2002
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
Heyer v. Moldenhauer 538 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Heyer v. Moldenhauer 538 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(“Parties may validly choose to arbitrate all controversies, including fraud in the inducement.”).
Independent School District No. 279 v. Winkelman Building Corp. 530 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Independent School District No. 279 v. Winkelman Building Corp. 530 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
“The issue of arbitrability is to be determined by ascertaining the intention of the parties through examination of the language of the arbitration agreement.”
Johnson v. Piper Jaffray, Inc. 515 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Johnson v. Piper Jaffray, Inc. 515 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Amdahl v. Green Giant Co. 497 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Amdahl v. Green Giant Co. 497 N.W.2d 319 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
In Re Grievance Arbitration Between Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. & City of Crosby 497 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Schoenborn v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. 495 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Schoenborn v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. 495 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Morrison v. Northern States Power Co. 491 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Morrison v. Northern States Power Co. 491 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Stahl v. McGenty 486 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Stahl v. McGenty 486 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of Am., 292 Minn. 334, 350
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
Fouquette v. FIRST AM. NAT. SEC., INC. 464 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Fouquette v. FIRST AM. NAT. SEC., INC. 464 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
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
*295 ANALYSIS In reviewing an order to compel or stay arbitration, “[a] reviewing court is not bound by the trial court’s interpretation of the arbitration agreement and independently determines whether the trial court correctly interpreted the clause.” see also Packer River Terminal, pet.