Har-Mar, Incorporated v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Minn.Stat. § 541.05(1) did not bar arbitration of claim that would have been barred had it been asserted in a court action
• finding “trial court’s factual conclusion cannot be sustained” where no facts in record support a voluntary relinquishment of known right
• explaining the term “action” in Minnesota statute of limitations was intended to be confined to judicial proceedings
• stating “[e]ven though many years of unexplained delay followed the initial fee dispute, there are no facts in the record supporting Thorsen’s voluntary relinquishment of its contractual right to arbitrate”
• an arbitration proceeding is not an “action”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).