context: Although the arbitration in this case was conducted pursuant to Islamic law, judicial review of any arbitration award is limited to those matters where jurisdiction is statutorily granted.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 216 Minn. 27, 33
citation_a.parenthetical: "In the absence of statute ... the decisions of common-law arbitrators are not subject to judicial review and supervision."
citation_a.sentence: Univ. of Minn. v. Woolley, 659 N.W.2d 300, 308 (Minn.App.2003) (stating aggrieved school employee who choose to submit matter to arbitration is only entitled to limited judicial review under chapter 572), review denied (Minn. Jun. 17, 2003); see also Park Const. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 32, 216 Minn. 27, 33, 11 N.W.2d 649, 653 (1943) (“In the absence of statute ... the decisions of common-law arbitrators are not subject to judicial review and supervision.”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 659 N.W.2d 300, 308
citation_b.parenthetical: stating aggrieved school employee who choose to submit matter to arbitration is only entitled to limited judicial review under chapter 572
citation_b.sentence: Univ. of Minn. v. Woolley, 659 N.W.2d 300, 308 (Minn.App.2003) (stating aggrieved school employee who choose to submit matter to arbitration is only entitled to limited judicial review under chapter 572), review denied (Minn. Jun. 17, 2003); see also Park Const. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 32, 216 Minn. 27, 33, 11 N.W.2d 649, 653 (1943) (“In the absence of statute ... the decisions of common-law arbitrators are not subject to judicial review and supervision.”).