Legal Opinion · Dissent

Anderson v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided March 15, 1991No. C0-90-1456Published

1DissentNorton, Judge

I respectfully dissent. When the Minnesota legislature adopted an act “to validate arbitration agreements,” it did not intend to nullify arbitration agreements which were valid and enforceable under prior Minnesota law. Unif.Arbitration Act, 7 U.L.A. 1 (1986).

The Minnesota Uniform Arbitration Act does not expressly affect the availability of common law arbitration. See Minn.Stat. § 572.08-.30 (1988). “Ordinarily statutes are presumed not to alter or modify the common law unless they expressly so provide.” Agassiz & Odessa Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Magnusson, 272 Minn. 156, 166, 136 N.W.2d 861,…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Layne-Minnesota Co. v. Regents of the University of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
  2. Park Construction Co. v. Independent School District No. 32Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
  3. Wetzel v. Sullivan, King & Sabom, P.C., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1988
  4. Board of Education v. Prince George's County Educators' Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1987
  5. Bennett v. MeaderSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988

13 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