Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 14.44 (2026)

Determination Of Validity Of Rule

✓ current as of May 2026

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

The validity of any rule may be determined upon the petition for a declaratory judgment thereon, addressed to the court of appeals, when it appears that the rule, or its threatened application, interferes with or impairs, or threatens to interfere with or impair the legal rights or privileges of the petitioner. The agency shall be made a party to the proceeding. The declaratory judgment may be rendered whether or not the petitioner has first requested the agency to pass upon the validity of the rule in question, and whether or not the agency has commenced an action against the petitioner to enforce the rule.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 35 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Manufactured Hous. Inst. v. Pettersen, 347 N.W.2d 238 (Minn. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Manufactured Hous. Inst. v. Pettersen, 347 N.W.2d 238 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 13× “68 (1982) says that judicial review “shall be confined to the record, except in cases of alleged irregularities in procedure, not shown on the record * * But where, as here, there is a pre-enforcement challenge, judicial review is governed by Minn. Stat. §§ 14.44 and 14.45…”

Save Mille Lacs Sportsfishing, Inc. v. Minnesota Dep't of Nat. Resources, 859 N.W.2d 845 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 21× “SYLLABUS The absence of a citation to or analysis of a relevant constitutional or common-law principle by an administrative agency in the rulemaking process is not grounds for declaring a rule invalid in a pre-enforcement challenge conducted under Minn. Stat. §§ 14.44 , .45…”

Minnesota Chamber of Com. v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 469 N.W.2d 100 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 14× “The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce seeks a declaratory judgment from this court under Minn.Stat. § 14.44 (1990). The Chamber argues that in adopting Minn.”

Underdahl v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 735 N.W.2d 706 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 4× “The commissioner then asserts that, because Minn.Stat. § 14.44 (2006) gives the court of appeals exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over challenges to administrative rules, the district court lacked jurisdiction to order discovery of the source code.”

Rocco Altobelli, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Com., 524 N.W.2d 30 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 12× “Petitioners seek to invoke this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Minn.Stat. §§ 14.44 and 14.45 (1992) to challenge the validity of Minnesota Rule 2642.”

Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 765 N.W.2d 159 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “We first address the MPCA’s argument that the coalition lacks standing to bring this pre-enforcement rule challenge.”

L.K. v. Gregg, 380 N.W.2d 145 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 6× “Appellants have also petitioned this court (C5-85-1275), pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 14.44 (1984), for a declaratory judgment on the validity of respondent Commissioner’s rules governing discharge of residents from the home.”

Jewish Cmty. Action v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 657 N.W.2d 604 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 11× “This is a pre-enforcement declaratory-judgment action over which this court has original jurisdiction under Minn.Stat. § 14.44 (2002). The petitioners seek judgment declaring invalid certain department of public safety rules pertaining to proof of identity for the issuance of…”

Minnesota Educ. Ass'n v. Minnesota State Bd. of Educ., 499 N.W.2d 846 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 12× “Minn.Stat. § 14.44. 2 There are three statutory grounds upon which to challenge the validity of a Board rule.”

Peterson v. Minnesota Dep't of Labor & Indus., 591 N.W.2d 76 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “Petitioners invoke our declaratory power under Minn.Stat. § 14.44 (1998) to determine whether Minn.”

Ellingson & Assocs., Inc. v. Keefe, 410 N.W.2d 857 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “See Minn. Stat. § 14.44 (1986). Appellants’ complaint also alleged that various acts of the Commissioner were unlawful under the antitrust statute as a conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade.”

Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Metro. Airports Comm'n, 672 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 14.44 (2002). It provides: The validity of any rule may be determined upon the petition for a declaratory judgment thereon, addressed to the court of appeals, when it appears that the rule, or its threatened application, *386 interferes with or impairs, or threatens…”

Show all 35 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.