Minn. Stat. » Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure · Rule 114 (Court of Appeals Review of Administrative Rules)
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 114.05 (2026)

Participants

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Persons, other than the petitioner, agency, and attorney general, may participate in the declaratory judgment action only with leave of the Court of Appeals. Permission may be sought by filing a motion with the Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 127 or 129 and serving that motion upon all other parties. The motion shall describe the nature of the movant's participation below, the interest which would be represented in the declaratory judgment action, and the manner in which the rule affects the rights or privileges of the moving party.

(Added effective January 1, 1999.)

Advisory Committee Comment - 1998 Amendments

By statute the Court of Appeals is granted original jurisdiction to review by declaratory judgment the validity of administrative rules promulgated by a state agency. Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 14.44. The statute contains no provisions regarding the procedure by which this review is to be accomplished. The Court of Appeals promulgated Minn. App. Spec. R. Pract. 10, effective October 25, 1991, to provide a procedural framework for such proceedings, but the Special Rules of Practice are not routinely referred to by the practicing bar when trying to determine matters of appellate procedure. To remedy this problem, a new rule, Rule 114, has been adopted.

A declaratory judgment action in the Court of Appeals is the proper method to challenge a rule prior to its application or enforcement. The grounds for challenging a rule, which must be described in the petition required by Rule 114.02, are prescribed by Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 14.45. Only formally promulgated rules may be challenged in a pre-enforcement action under Minnesota Statutes, section 14.44. Minnesota Educ. Ass'n v. Minnesota State Bd. of Educ., 499 N.W. 2d 846, 849 (Minn. App. 1993). This pre-enforcement challenge must be distinguished from a contested case action in which a rule is applied to a particular party and the validity of the rule, as illustrated by the application in the individual case, may be considered. See Mammenga v. State Dep't of Human Servs., 442 N.W. 2d 786 (Minn. 1989).