Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 543. SUMMONS, JURISDICTION; CERTAIN CASES
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 543.08 (2026)

Summons, Service Upon Certain Corporations

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If a private domestic corporation has no officer at the registered office of the corporation within the state upon whom service can be made, of which fact the return of the sheriff of the county in which that office is located, or the affidavit of a private person not a party, that none can be found in that county shall be conclusive evidence, service of the summons upon it may be made according to section 5.25.

If the defendant is a foreign insurance corporation, the summons may be served in compliance with section 45.028, subdivision 2.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1943–2024 · leading case: Derrick v. Drolson Co., 69 N.W.2d 124 (Minn. 1955).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Derrick v. Drolson Co., 69 N.W.2d 124 (Minn. 1955). · cites it 3× “1949, § 543.08, the first paragraph of which provided: “If the action be against a private domestic corporation, the summons may be served by delivering a copy thereof to its president, vice-president, secretary, cashier, or treasurer, or to any director or managing agent…”
McNeely v. Clayton & Lambert Mfg. Co., 292 F. Supp. 232 (D. Minn. 1968). · cites it 4× “7 Service of process was effectuated under Minn.Stat. § 543.08 and its predecessors providing for service on a foreign corporation by “delivering a copy [of the summons and complaint] to any of its officers or agents within the state.”
Hawes v. Cart Prods., Inc., 386 F. Supp. 2d 681 (D.S.C. 2005). “Minn.Stat. § 543.08. Here, Plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit showing that no officer of U.”
Marlow v. Hinman Milking Mach. Co., 7 F.R.D. 751 (D. Minn. 1947). · cites it 2× “His duties and his activities were broad, and those, not his title, must control.”
Kopio's, Inc. v. Bridgeman Creameries, Inc., 79 N.W.2d 921 (Minn. 1956). “For example, he can invoke § 543.08, which provides that if a domestic corporation has no officer within the state upon whom service can be made service of summons upon the corporation may be had by serving the secretary of state in the manner specified.”
Wachtler v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R., 7 F.R.D. 560 (D. Minn. 1947). · cites it 4× “Section 543.08 of the Minnesota Statutes of 1945 and M.”
Henderson v. Nw. Heating Engineers, Inc., 144 N.W.2d 46 (Minn. 1966). “cted the view that anyone who was authorized to receive service on behalf of the corporation prior to dissolution could be properly served with process after the dissolution had been made complete and ruled that a former agent whose connections with and responsibilities to a…”
Pierce v. Grand Army of the Repub., 20 N.W.2d 489 (Minn. 1945). “1941, § 543.08 (Mason St. 1927, § 9231), has ever been appointed by defendant.”
Berkman v. Weckerling, 77 N.W.2d 291 (Minn. 1956). “1949, § 543.08. The pertinent portion of that statute reads as follows: “If the action be against a private domestic corporation, the summons may be served by delivering a copy thereof to its president, vice-president, secretary, cashier, or treasurer, or to any director or…”
Loken v. Diamond T Motor Car Co., 12 N.W.2d 345 (Minn. 1943). “1941, § 543.08 (Mason St. 1927, § 9231[3]). Appellant’s counsel vehemently claims that this was emergency Avork due to the war and that appellant while doing such work in this state was immune from process here.”
Nurmi v. J. I. Case Co., 16 N.W.2d 79 (Minn. 1944). “A foreign corporation shall be subject to service of process, as follows: “(1) By service thereof on its registered agent;” An additional method for such service is provided by § 543.08 (Mason St. 1927, § 9231 [3]), as follows: “If the defendant be a foreign corporation the…”
Smith v. Johnson, No. 5:24-cv-00368 (N.D.N.Y. June 14, 2024). “1995); Minn. Stat. § 543.08 dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction, improper (1995); Minn.”
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.