Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 14.38 (2026)

Effect Of Adoption Of Rules

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Original rules.

Every rule, regardless of whether it might be known as a substantive, procedural, or interpretive rule, which is filed in the Office of the Secretary of State as provided in sections 14.05 to 14.28 shall have the force and effect of law five working days after its notice of adoption is published in the State Register unless a different date is required by statute or a later date is specified in the rule. The secretary of state shall keep a permanent record of rules filed with that office open to public inspection.

Subd. 2.Retroactive application.

Every existing rule, regardless of whether it might be known as a substantive, procedural, or interpretive rule, has the force and effect of law retroactive to the date on which the rule became effective if:

(1) the rule was adopted in compliance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act in effect at the time the rule was adopted;

(2) the rule was approved by the attorney general or Office of Administrative Hearings before becoming effective; and

(3) the adopting agency had statutory authority to adopt the rule.

Subd. 3.Limitation.

Subdivisions 1 and 2 do not apply to any rule specifically held not to have the force and effect of law by the state supreme court before May 8, 1981.

Subd. 4.Amendments; repealers; suspended rules.

Each rule hereafter amended, suspended, or repealed is amended, suspended, or repealed five working days after the appropriate notice is published in the State Register unless a later date is required by law or specified in the rule.

Subd. 5.

[Repealed, 1997 c 187 art 5 s 36]

Subd. 6.

[Repealed, 1997 c 187 art 5 s 36]

Subd. 7.

[Repealed, 1997 c 187 art 5 s 36]

Subd. 8.

[Repealed, 1997 c 187 art 5 s 36]

Subd. 9.

[Repealed, 1997 c 187 art 5 s 36]

Subd. 10.Previously filed rules; previously exempt agencies.

Rules excluded from the Administrative Procedure Act in Minnesota Statutes 1978, section 15.0411, subdivision 2, but included in the rulemaking provisions of the act in Minnesota Statutes 1980, section 15.0411, subdivision 2, have the force and effect of law and shall be published by the revisor of statutes pursuant to section 14.47, to the extent the rules are still in effect, if the rules were:

(1) adopted by an agency; and,

(2) filed with the secretary of state before April 25, 1980.

Subd. 11.Unfiled rules; previously exempt agencies.

Rules excluded from the Administrative Procedure Act in Minnesota Statutes 1978, section 15.0411, subdivision 2, but included in the rulemaking provisions of the act in Minnesota Statutes 1980, section 15.0411, subdivision 2, shall have the force and effect of law and be published by the revisor of statutes pursuant to section 14.47, to the extent the rules are still in effect, if:

(1) the rules were adopted by an agency;

(2) the rules were not filed with the secretary of state before April 25, 1980; and,

(3) a copy of the rules which were effective on April 25, 1980, but unfiled with the secretary of state are filed with both the secretary of state and the revisor of statutes before September 1, 1981.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2024 · leading case: Quam v. State, 391 N.W.2d 803 (Minn. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Quam v. State, 391 N.W.2d 803 (Minn. 1986). · cites it 2× “6 was duly promulgated in accordance with the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act, Minn.”

Jacka v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 580 N.W.2d 27 (Minn. 1998). · cites it 2× “1994); Minn.Stat. § 14.38 (1996). 33 . Sherman v.”

U.S. West Material Resources, Inc. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 511 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. 1994). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 14.38 (1992); Minn.Stat. § 270.”

State v. Otterstad, 734 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 14.38, subd. 1 (2006); U.S. West Material Resources, Inc.”

Blocher Outdoor Advert. Co. v. Minnesota Dep't of Transp., 347 N.W.2d 88 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “03 at 299 (1958)); Minn. Stat. § 14.38 , subd. 1; Cf. Minn.Stat.”

Broen Mem'l Home v. Minnesota Dep't of Human Servs., 364 N.W.2d 436 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “03 at 299 (1958)); Minn.Stat. § 14.38, subd. 1; Cf. Minn.Stat.”

In re Pera Salary Determinations Affecting Retired & Active Employees, 820 N.W.2d 563 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 14.38, subd. 1. Second, an interpretive rule that has not been properly promulgated may nonetheless be valid in two situations: “if the agency’s interpretation of a [statute] corresponds with its plain meaning, or if the [statute] is ambiguous and the agency…”

Schultz v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 365 N.W.2d 304 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Respondent contends this requirement cannot be enforced because the internal guidelines do not have the force and effect of law because they were not promulgated pursuant tó rule making under the APA or the abbreviated rule making procedures of Minn.”

Cont'l Sales & Equip. Co. v. Town of Stuntz, 257 N.W.2d 546 (Minn. 1977). “See, Antieau, Municipal Corporation Law, § 14.38, et seq. In short, any method resulting in a fair approximation of the increase in market value for each benefited parcel may be used.”

Dullard v. Minnesota Dept. of Human Servs., 529 N.W.2d 438 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “" Minn.Stat. § 14.38, subd. 1 (1992). Failure to follow the procedures of the MAPA, however, generally invalidates the rule.”

In Re the Denial of Certification of the Variance Granted to Haslund Ex Rel. City of St. Mary's Point, 759 N.W.2d 680 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “To determine whether an ordinance conflicts with a statute, we are guided by four general principles: (a) As a general rule, conflicts which would render an ordinance invalid exist only when both the ordinance and the statute contain express or implied terms that are…”

Flores v. Dep't of Jobs & Training, 393 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “A rule promulgated pursuant to statutory authority: is valid and is as binding upon a court as a statute if it is (a) within the granted power, (b) issued pursuant to proper procedure, and (c) reasonable. [State, by Spannaus v.”

Show all 22 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.