Legal Opinion

Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 16, 2000No. C7-98-2251PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

RUSSELL A. ANDERSON, Justice.

In this case we are asked, in the context of a human rights claim arising out of an employment relationship, to resolve an apparent conflict between two statutes. The Minnesota Uniform Arbitration Act (arbitration act) gives binding effect to arbitration provisions in employment agreements. On the other hand, the Minnesota Human Rights Act (human rights act) provides that the administrative procedures for resolution of claims, which include hearings before an administrative law judge, are exclusive while pending. Relying on the human rights act, Bryan…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Southland Corp. v. KeatingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  5. Hibbing Education Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. ILHC OF EAGAN, LLC v. County of DakotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
  2. Martin Ex Rel. Hoff v. City of RochesterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
  3. Gee v. Minnesota State Colleges & UniversitiesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005
  4. Peggy Rose Revocable Trust v. EppichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
  5. Coker v. LudemanCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2009

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

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

Powered by the Exa API