Legal Opinion

Dachtera v. Whitehouse

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided April 18, 2000No. C5-99-1741PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HARTEN, Judge.

After respondents terminated the contract between the parties, appellants sought to arbitrate pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 325E.37 (1998). Respondents brought this declaratory judgment action to determine the statute’s application and to stay arbitration. Appellants now challenge the summary judgment and the stay of arbitration granted to respondents. Because we conclude that appellants have no statutory right to arbitration, we affirm.

FACTS

Respondent Craig Dachtera is the sole shareholder, president, and employee of respondent Dachtera Sales, Inc. (DSI). DSI’s business…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical CenterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  2. Boubelik v. Liberty State BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
  3. Kabanuk Diversified Investments, Inc. v. Credit General Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
  4. Minnesota Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 495Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  5. Helmerichs v. Bank of Minneapolis & Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Brodsky v. BrodskyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007
  2. Lesley ADAMS, William Adams and Adams Construction VT, LLC v. Russell D. BARR and Barr & Associates, P.C. D/B/A Barr Law GroupSupreme Court of Vermont · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API