Legal Opinion

University of Minnesota v. Woolley

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided April 22, 2003No. C6-02-1534PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HUSPENI, Judge. *

By writ of certiorari, relator seeks review of an arbitration decision affirming the termination of his employment pursuant to the University of Minnesotas grievance procedure. We discharge the writ of certiorari on the ground that although relator could have obtained certiorari review of the Phase III administrative decision, judicial review of a Phase IV arbitration decision is available only from the district court pursuant to the Uniform Arbitration Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 572.08-.30 (2000).

FACTS

Relator Robert J. Woolley, M.D., was employed as a physician at Boynton…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Dietz v. Dodge CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
  2. State v. BerthiaumeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  3. Grover-Dimond Associates, Inc. v. American Arbitration Ass'nSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
  4. Grudem Brothers Co. v. Great Western Piping Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
  5. Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Metropolitan CouncilSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Schandelmeier v. BrownWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Abd Alla v. MourssiCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
  3. Lee v. Regents of the University of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API