Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 546.39 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
MS 1949 [Repealed, 1974 c 394 s 12]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1942–1987 · leading case: Lampert Lumber Co. v. Joyce, 405 N.W.2d 423 (Minn. 1987).
Lampert Lumber Co. v. Joyce, 405 N.W.2d 423 (Minn. 1987). “Prior to the adoption of the rules of civil procedure in 1952, dismissals were governed by Minn.Stat. § 546.39. Under that former statute, the court could on its own dismiss without prejudice "where, upon the trial and before final submission of the case" a party either…”
Falkenstein v. Braufman, 88 N.W.2d 884 (Minn. 1958). “1949, § 546.39, adopts the general pattern of the prior law in that the plaintiff is given an absolute right to dismiss the action until a specified day by the mere filing of a notice of dismissal; that thereafter he may dismiss only by filing a stipulation signed by all the…”
Bolstad v. Paul Bunyan Oil Co., 9 N.W.2d 346 (Minn. 1943). “Plaintiff moves to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that dismissal of the action below is authorized under § 546.39(1), (§ 9322[1]) as one “before the trial begins.”
Nyberg v. Cambridge State Bank, 72 N.W.2d 345 (Minn. 1955). “1949, § 546.39, 7 provides: “For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with * * * any order of the court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action * * * against him.”
Rhein v. Rhein, 69 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. 1955). “1949, § 546.39(1). For interpretations of similar provisions in other jurisdictions, see Annotation, 138 A.”
Mitchell v. Bazille, 13 N.W.2d 20 (Minn. 1944). “The legislature has deliberately prescribed rules governing the right to dismiss by providing that in ordinary civil actions a voluntary dismissal shall be “before the trial begins” (Minn.”
H. Christiansen & Sons, Inc. v. City of Duluth, 31 N.W.2d 277 (Minn. 1948). “Thereafter, under § 546.39, plaintiff did not possess the power to dismiss the action of its own will as a matter of right.”
Lampert Lumber Co. v. Joyce, 396 N.W.2d 75 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). “2d 277, 279 (1948) (quoting Minn.Stat. § 546.39 (1945)). The Minnesota Supreme Court construed this statute in Willard v.”
Docken v. Ryan, 6 N.W.2d 98 (Minn. 1942). “1941, § 546.39(3) (Mason St. 1927, § 9322[3]), the court is authorized to dismiss a case if the plaintiff “fails to substantiate or establish his cause of action or right to recover.”
Conradson v. Vinkemeier, 51 N.W.2d 651 (Minn. 1952). “Having once been brought in as a party defendant, plaintiffs, under § 546.39, would have the same right to dismiss as if the defendant had been originally sued.”
— Minn. Stat. § 546.39(1) — 2 cases
Bolstad v. Paul Bunyan Oil Co., 9 N.W.2d 346 (Minn. 1943). “Plaintiff moves to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that dismissal of the action below is authorized under § 546.39(1), (§ 9322[1]) as one “before the trial begins.”
Rhein v. Rhein, 69 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. 1955). “1949, § 546.39(1). For interpretations of similar provisions in other jurisdictions, see Annotation, 138 A.”
— Minn. Stat. § 546.39(3) — 1 case
Docken v. Ryan, 6 N.W.2d 98 (Minn. 1942). “1941, § 546.39(3) (Mason St. 1927, § 9322[3]), the court is authorized to dismiss a case if the plaintiff “fails to substantiate or establish his cause of action or right to recover.”
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.