Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 555. UNIFORM DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ACT
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 555.01 (2026)

Courts To Construe Rights

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect; and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 83 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1944–2026 · leading case: Cruz-Guzman v. State, 916 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cruz-Guzman v. State, 916 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2018). · cites it 4× “The State contends that the claims and requested remedies in this case "directly implicate[ ] actions only school districts and charter schools can take, but they have not been included as parties.”
Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 4× “01 says, “No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed for.”
Dokmo v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 11, 459 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 1990). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 555.01 (1988) states, "Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.”
Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 4× “1 (2004) (providing for judicial review of municipal planning or zoning decisions in the district court); Minn.Stat. § 555.01 (2004) ("Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not…”
Matter of Conservatorship of Torres, 357 N.W.2d 332 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 4× “Insofar as the Legislature has also directed that the Act "be liberally construed and administered", Id.”
Hempel v. Creek House Trust, 743 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “Appellants included a request for a declaratory judgment under Minn.Stat. § 555.01 (2004), and a claim for “specific performance/breach of contract/damages.”
Onvoy, Inc. v. Allete, Inc., 736 N.W.2d 611 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 2× “” Minn. Stat. § 555.01 (2006). Parties to a written contract “may have determined any question of construction or validity” arising under the contract.”
Fedziuk v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 696 N.W.2d 340 (Minn. 2005). · cites it 2× “2 Fedziuk also filed a complaint on April 27, 2004, seeking judgment under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 555.01 -.16 (2004). She requested a finding and declaration that “Minnesota’s Implied Consent Law is unconstitutional as a violation of due process.”
Dwight Mitchell v. Dakota Cnty. Soc. Servs., 959 F.3d 887 (8th Cir. 2020). “See Minn. Stat. § 555.01 et seq. Because they have not established an underlying cause of action, there is no basis on which to award declaratory relief.”
Chad Nelson, Below v. Troy Schlener, Carla Brown, Below, Minnesota Dep't of Human Servs., 859 N.W.2d 288 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 2× “, Minn.Stat. § 555.01 (2014) ("Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations.”
McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing, 808 N.W.2d 331 (Minn. 2011). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 555.01. The Declaratory Judgments Act “is remedial, intended to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations.”
Streambend Props. III, LLC v. Sexton Lofts, LLC, 297 F.R.D. 349 (D. Minnesota 2014). · cites it 4× “(against Developers and Burnet); 3 Count III: Violation of Minnesota Common Interest Ownership Act (“MCIOA”) (against Developers and Burnet); Count IV: Fraud (against Developers and Burnet); Count V: Wrongful Cancellation (Against Sexton Lofts); Count VI: Breach of Contract…”
Show all 83 citing 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.