§
Subdivision 1.Decision of cases.
Each case shall be submitted to a panel of at least three judges. The decision of a majority of the judges to which it is submitted shall be the decision of the court.
§
Subd. 2.Assignment of judges to panels.
In assigning judges to panels, the chief judge shall rotate assignments, so that as nearly as practicable, each judge serves a proportionate time with every other judge. The chief judge shall also rotate assignments to various locations for hearings.
§
Subd. 3.Decisions.
(a) A decision shall be rendered in every case within 90 days after oral argument or after the final submission of briefs or memoranda by the parties, whichever is later. The chief justice or the chief judge may waive the 90-day limitation for any proceeding before the court of appeals for good cause shown. In every case, the decision of the court, including any written opinion containing a summary of the case and a statement of the reasons for its decision, shall be indexed and made readily available.
(b) The decision of the court need not include a written opinion. A statement of the decision without a written opinion must not be officially published and must not be cited as precedent, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
§
Subd. 4.Interlocutory matters.
The Rules of Appellate Procedure may provide for the decision of interlocutory or procedural matters by a single judge.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3,259
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case:
State v. Barnard, 658 S.E.2d 643 (N.C. 2008).
State v. Barnard, 658 S.E.2d 643 (N.C. 2008).
· cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. Ann. § 480A.08 subdiv. 3(c) (West 2002).”
Marriage of Zander v. Zander, 720 N.W.2d 360 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “" Minn.Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3(c) (2004). Nevertheless, we conclude that Coursolle is distinguishable on the same grounds as Kucera .”
State v. Porte, 832 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “24, 2001); State v. Acosta, No. C3-99-1785, 2000 WL 1146120 at *3 (Minn.”
Powell v. Anderson, 660 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 1 (2000). After a careful review of the internal handling of this matter, the submissions of all parties, and the appellate record, the panel has concluded that there has not been a sufficient showing for the extraordinary remedy sought.”
Whitten v. State, 690 N.W.2d 561 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3(b) (2002). However, the timing of the release of this decision explains the timing of appellant's petition.”
Dynamic Air, Inc. v. Bloch, 502 N.W.2d 796 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3(c) (1992). At best, these opinions can be of persuasive value.”
State v. Ellis-Strong, 899 N.W.2d 531 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016); City of St.”
Moore v. City of New Brighton, 932 N.W.2d 317 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Not only is Phillips nonprecedential as an unpublished opinion, see Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018), it also does not stand for the city's asserted proposition.”
— Minn. Stat. § 480A.08(3) — 7 cases
— Minn. Stat. § 480A.08(3)(b) — 2 cases
— Minn. Stat. § 480A.08(3)(c) — 3 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.