Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 555.06 (2026)

Discretionary

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree, if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1981–2016 · leading case: Matter of Est. of Congdon, 309 N.W.2d 261 (Minn. 1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Matter of Est. of Congdon, 309 N.W.2d 261 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 8× “The motion to dismiss was granted pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 555.06 (1980). [6] On August 15, 1980, Mrs.”

Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cady, 318 N.W.2d 247 (Minn. 1982). · cites it 2× “It was then the duty of the trier of fact, here the trial court, to determine whether there was a joint venture — unless the issue to be decided is the same as an issue in the main action, or unless its resolution would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to…”

Hempel v. Creek House Trust, 743 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 555.06 (2004). But here, two inconsistent documents were before the district court: the right-of-first-refusal agreement and the lapse statement.”

Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Franck, 621 N.W.2d 270 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 555.06 (1998) (court may refuse to enter a declaratory judgment when judgment would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy).”

Graham v. Crow Wing Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 515 N.W.2d 81 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “Frost-Benco Elec. Ass'n v. Minnesota Pub. Utils.”

Unbank Co., LLP v. Merwin Drug Co., Inc., 677 N.W.2d 105 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 555.06 (2002) (court may refuse to enter declaratory judgment if it would not terminate uncertainty or controversy); see also Cincinnati Ins.”

Application of Hofstad, 376 N.W.2d 698 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “§ 555.06. The identical four questions regarding the option agreement raised by appellant Hargests in the trial court were raised by them in 1982 in their motion for amended findings, conclusions of law, and order for judgment.”

State v. Joseph, 622 N.W.2d 358 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 555.06 (1998). The district court here held that Church Mutual not only had to bring the action within six years after the accident but also had to obtain a favorable ruling.”

In Re Hennepin Cnty. 1986 Recycling Bond Litig., 517 N.W.2d 63 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 555.06 (1992) (the court may refuse to grant declaratory relief where such relief would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding).”

Rupp v. Mayasich, 561 N.W.2d 555 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Whether a court has jurisdiction is a question of law, subject to de novo review.”

State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Andrew Matiatos (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). “§ 555.06 (2014). The district court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to issue a declaratory judgment; based on its ultimate decision, the district court did not consider the ordinance to be unconstitutional, and a declaratory judgment that the ordinance was not…”

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.