§
Subdivision 1.Initial disqualification.
Any party, or the party's attorney, to a cause pending in a district court, except for a proceeding under section 484.702, may make and file with the court administrator in which the action is pending and serve on the opposite party a notice to remove. The notice must be served and filed within ten days after the party receives notice of which judge or judicial officer is to preside at the trial or hearing, or, if no notice of a hearing is served with the summons, then within the time to answer the summons, whichever is later. Thereupon without any further act or proof, the chief judge of the judicial district shall assign any other judge of any court within the district to preside at the trial of the cause or the hearing of the motion or order to show cause, and the cause shall be continued on the calendar, until the assigned judge can be present. In criminal actions the notice to remove shall be made and filed with the court administrator by the defendant, or the defendant's attorney, not less than two days before the expiration of the time allowed by law to prepare for trial and in any of those cases the presiding judge shall be incapacitated to try the cause. In criminal cases, the chief judge, for the purpose of securing a speedy trial, may change the place of trial to another county.
§
Subd. 2.Subsequent disqualifications.
After having once disqualified a presiding judge as a matter of right under subdivision 1, a litigant may disqualify the substitute judge, but only by making an affirmative showing of prejudice. A showing that the judge might be excluded for bias from acting as a juror in the matter constitutes an affirmative showing of prejudice. If a litigant makes an affirmative showing of prejudice against a substitute judge, the chief judge of the judicial district shall assign any other judge of any court within the district to hear the cause.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
33
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1949–2025 · leading case:
State v. Cermak, 350 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. 1984).
State v. Cermak, 350 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. 1984).
· cites it 34× “On October 21, 1981, appellant filed a notice to remove the trial judge based upon Minn. Stat. § 542.16 (1982). The trial judge previously assigned to the case refused to remove himself.”
State v. Azure, 621 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. 2001).
· cites it 24× “Appellant argues that Minn.Stat. § 542.16 (1998), not Minn. R.Crim.”
State v. Erickson, 589 N.W.2d 481 (Minn. 1999).
· cites it 16× “13(4), in that it allows a litigant to file one notice of removal with no requirement of a showing, or even an allegation, of bias or prejudice. Minn.Stat. § 542.16. Minnesota Statutes section 542.”
State v. Dahlin, 753 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. 2008).
· cites it 3× “13 The civil rule was “substantially rewritten” in 1985 in order to adapt the rule “to follow in large part the notice of removal procedure established by Minn. Stat. § 542.16 (1982).” 14 Minn. R.”
State v. Richards, 456 N.W.2d 260 (Minn. 1990).
· cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 542.16, subd. 1 (1988). On the day of the Rasmussen hearing, March 20, 1989, defendant objected to the court's "apparent decision not to honor this affidavit of prejudice.”
Marriage of Lappi v. Lappi, 294 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. 1980).
· cites it 6× “We conclude that severance of the two matters was not improper, because, contrary to appellant’s contention, the record fails to disclose any substantial prejudice occasioned by the bifurcation.”
State v. Cheng, 623 N.W.2d 252 (Minn. 2001).
· cites it 4× “The state actually filed its notice to remove pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 542.16 (1998) although its legal arguments are based on the notice to remove provisions in Minn.”
State v. Laughlin, 508 N.W.2d 545 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 6× “See Minn.Stat. § 542.16, subd. 2 (1988). This statute, although still in effect, has been superseded in criminal proceedings by an amendment to the Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
State v. Kramer, 441 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “Kramer did not file a notice to remove, Minn.Stat. § 542.16, subd. 2 (1988), but did make a motion on the record before trial.”
Marriage of Berthiaume v. Berthiaume, 368 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 542.16 (1982). An affidavit of prejudice under that statute is not timely if the period allowed for a new trial under Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 59 has not yet expired.”
State v. Hoskins, 193 N.W.2d 802 (Minn. 1972).
· cites it 2× “Following discussion on this motion, it was denied by the court, and a discussion off the record followed in chambers.”
— Minn. Stat. § 542.16(b) — 1 case
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.