Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A., 607 N.W.2d 440.

52 citing documents.

In re: Estate of Loretta M. Chisholm, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating questions regarding statutory construction are legal issues this court reviews de novo).
State v. Thonesavanh 904 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2017
City of Rochester v. Kottschade 896 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2017
City of Rochester v. Kottschade 896 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2017
Co., 875 (Minn. 1988), in part because the “purpose of the arbitration act is to provide an efficient and relatively inexpensive mechanism for resolving disputes,” Correll v. Distinctive Dental Servs., P.A., (citing Eric A. Carlstrom Constr.
Stand Up Multipositional Advantage MRI, P.A. v. American Family Insurance Company, a Wisconsin corporation, Michael Schultz, Ilya Knyazev, … 889 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2017
Stand Up Multipositional Advantage MRI, P.A. v. American Family Insurance Company, a Wisconsin corporation, Michael Schultz, Ilya Knyazev, … 889 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2017
In this specific context—in which there are countervailing policies at issue and the statutory scheme does not resolve the question—“it is for the legislature, rather than this court, to weigh the competing policies at issue and determine the appropriate balance.” Correll v. Distinctive Dental Servs., P.A.
Fern Hill Place Retail Association, Inc. v. Fern Hill Place Homeowners Association, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Fern Hill Place Retail Association, Inc. v. Fern Hill Place Homeowners Association, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Moreover, the RA’s argument that the parties should have brought the dispute in a separate arbitration proceeding would contravene the underlying purpose of arbitration “to provide an efficient and relatively inexpensive mechanism for resolving disputes.” Correll v. Distinctive Dental Servs., P.A.
R. Wynn Kearney, Jr., M.D. v. The Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic, P.A. v. Steven B. Curtis, intervening and … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
R. Wynn Kearney, Jr., M.D. v. The Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic, P.A. v. Steven B. Curtis, intervening and … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Servs., P.A., rev’d on other grounds
Edwards v. HOPKINS PLAZA LTD. PARTNERSHIP 783 N.W.2d 171 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Edwards v. HOPKINS PLAZA LTD. PARTNERSHIP 783 N.W.2d 171 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Servs., P.A., Minn.Stat.
Coker v. Ludeman 775 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Coker v. Ludeman 775 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
BRIDGEWATER TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. v. City of Monticello 765 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
BRIDGEWATER TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. v. City of Monticello 765 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Servs., P.A.
TCM PROPERTIES, LLC v. Gunderson 720 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
TCM PROPERTIES, LLC v. Gunderson 720 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
§ 645.16 (2004); Correll v. Distinctive Dental Servs., P.A.
Gee v. Minnesota State Colleges & Universities 700 N.W.2d 548 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Gee v. Minnesota State Colleges & Universities 700 N.W.2d 548 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
§ 645.16 (2004) (providing if statute is clear we rely on its plain meaning); (applying plain-meaning rule to MHRA).
TIMELINE, LLC v. Williams Holdings 3, LLC 698 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
TIMELINE, LLC v. Williams Holdings 3, LLC 698 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
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
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Servs., P.A., Ehlert v. W. Nat’l Mut.
Carlson v. Friday 694 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Carlson v. Friday 694 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Servs., *830 P.A.
State v. Gabbert 693 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Delacy Investments, Inc. v. Thurman 693 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Delacy Investments, Inc. v. Thurman 693 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Gabbert 693 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
ILHC OF EAGAN, LLC v. County of Dakota 693 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2005
ILHC OF EAGAN, LLC v. County of Dakota 693 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2005
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Servs., P.A.
Blackowiak v. Mielke 692 N.W.2d 897 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Blackowiak v. Mielke 692 N.W.2d 897 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
A.J. Lights, LLC v. Synergy Design Group, Inc. 690 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
A.J. Lights, LLC v. Synergy Design Group, Inc. 690 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
“[A]n agreement to arbitrate a statutory claim is enforceable only if (1) the agreement encompasses the statutory issues and (2) ‘legal constraints external to the parties’ agreement’ do not preclude arbitration of the claim.” Correll v. Distinctive Dental Servs., P.A., (citation omitted).
State v. Banken 690 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Banken 690 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Peggy Rose Revocable Trust v. Eppich 640 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2002
Martin Ex Rel. Hoff v. City of Rochester 642 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2002
Martin Ex Rel. Hoff v. City of Rochester 642 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2002
§ 645.16 (2000); Correll v. Distinctive Dental Servs., P.A.
Peggy Rose Revocable Trust v. Eppich 640 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2002
See Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A., (acknowledging efficiency as the purpose of the arbitration act); Schmidt v. Midwest Family Mut.
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 636 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 636 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
v. Distinctive Dental Sews., P.A.
State v. Pearson 633 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Pearson 633 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Kent v. Block 623 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Kent v. Block 623 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Servs., P.A.
Hince v. O'KEEFE 613 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hince v. O'KEEFE 613 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 2000