All actions not enumerated in sections 542.02 to 542.08 and 542.095 shall be tried in a county in which one or more of the defendants reside when the action is begun or in which the cause of action or some part thereof arose. If none of the parties shall reside or be found in the state, the action may be begun and tried in any county which the plaintiff shall designate. A corporation, other than railroad companies, street railway companies, and street railroad companies whether the motive power is steam, electricity, or other power used by these corporations or companies, also telephone companies, telegraph companies, and all other public service corporations, shall be considered as residing in any county wherein it has an office, resident agent, or business place. The above enumerated public service corporations shall be considered as residing in any county wherein the cause of action shall arise and wherein any part of its lines of railway, railroad, street railway, street railroad, without regard to the motive power of the railroad, street railway, or street railroad, telegraph or telephone lines or any other public service corporation shall extend, without regard to whether the corporation or company has an office, agent, or business place in the county or not.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
31
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1942–2023 · leading case:
Panzram v. O'Donnell, 48 F. Supp. 74 (D. Minnesota 1942).
Panzram v. O'Donnell, 48 F. Supp. 74 (D. Minnesota 1942).
· cites it 12× “■ If it is defendant’s position that an unreasonable burden is imposed because the nonresident cannot obtain a venue in the county where the accident happened as a matter of right, then it may be observed that such venue is not necessarily the most convenient for the nonresident…”
Ebenezer Soc'y v. Minnesota State Bd. of Health, 223 N.W.2d 385 (Minn. 1974).
· cites it 5× “Respondents take the opposite position1 in support of the lower court, contending that the general venue provisions of § 542.09 control; venue was proper, it is suggested, since some part of the cause of action allegedly arose in Dakota County.”
Anderson v. Farmers Mut. Auto. Ins., 106 N.W.2d 369 (Minn. 1960).
· cites it 26× “) Plaintiff has taken the position that the contract entered into between plaintiff and defendants, under which plaintiff acted as an insurance agent, was breached by the defendants in Morrison County, or that at least part of it was breached in said county, and that therefore…”
Halliwill v. Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co., 100 N.W.2d 817 (Minn. 1960).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiff then moved the District Court of Ramsey County for an order to remand the action to Wadena County upon the grounds that under § 542.09, as amended by L. 1955, c. 614, (1) the cause of action, or *254 ■some part thereof, arose in Wadena County, or (2) the defendant has…”
VanHercke v. Eastvold, 405 N.W.2d 902 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 542.09 (1986) requires that all actions be tried in a county in which one or more of the defendants reside or in which the cause of action arose.”
Johnson v. Nelson, 275 N.W.2d 427 (Iowa 1979).
“1978); Minn. Stat.Ann. § 542.09 (Supp.1978); Neb.”
Donovan v. Dixon, 99 N.W.2d 783 (Minn. 1959).
· cites it 9× “10, have the right to obtain a change of venue upon demand to a county of their own selection not only in actions commenced in an improper county, but also in actions commenced in a proper county within the meaning of § 542.09 as amended by L. 1955, c. 614. Plaintiff commenced…”
Rouse Mech., Inc. v. Dahl, 489 N.W.2d 272 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 542.09 (1990). If suit is brought elsewhere, a defendant may demand that venue be “changed to the county where the defendant resides.”
Misgen v. Herda, 108 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. 1961).
· cites it 4× “Section 542.09, as far as material, reads: “All actions not enumerated in sections 542.”
Albrecht v. Sell, 110 N.W.2d 895 (Minn. 1961).
“” However, we are not concerned with whether the parties had actual knowledge of the 1955 amendment to § 542.09 since under well- *570 established principles of law they are conclusively presumed to be aware of existing .”
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.