Whenever any action at law or in equity is brought in any court in this state questioning directly or indirectly the existence of any condition or thing precedent to, or the validity of any action taken or proposed to be taken, by any public body or its officers or agents in the course of the authorization or sale, issuance or delivery of bonds, the making of a contract for public improvement or the validity of any proceeding to alter the organization of a school district in any manner, such public body may move the court for an order requiring the party, or parties, bringing such action to file a surety bond as hereinafter set forth. Three days' written notice of such motion shall be given. If the public body is not a party to the action, but if it deems that such action be injurious to the public interest and to the taxpayers, such public body may intervene or appear specially for the purpose of making such motion. If the court determines that loss or damage to the public or taxpayers may result from the pendency of the action or proceeding, the court may require such party, or parties, to file a surety bond, which shall be approved by the court, in such amount as the court may determine. The court must also consider whether the action presents substantial constitutional issues or substantial issues of statutory construction, and the likelihood of a party prevailing on these issues, when determining the amount of a bond and whether a bond should be required under this section or section 473.675. Such bond shall be conditioned for payment to the public body of any loss or damage which may be caused to the public body or taxpayers by such delay, to the extent of the penal sum of such bond, if such party, or parties, shall not prevail therein. If such surety bond is not filed within a reasonable time allowed therefor by the court, the action shall be dismissed with prejudice. If such party, or parties, file a bond as herein required and prevail in the action, any premium paid on the bond shall be repaid by or taxed against the public body.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases, 1960–2009 · leading case:
Pike v. Gunyou, 488 N.W.2d 298 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).
Pike v. Gunyou, 488 N.W.2d 298 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 256× “This appeal was taken from the dismissal of appellants' lawsuit for failure to post a $30 million surety bond pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 562.02 (1990). Appellants argue the statute does not apply to their constitutional challenge to the validity of 1991 Minn.”
Kilowatt Org. (TKO), Inc. v. Dep't of Energy, 336 N.W.2d 529 (Minn. 1983).
· cites it 32× “The court took this action pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 562.02 (1982), which provides that a court can require the posting of a surety bond in any matter where a public body proposes the authorization, sale, issuance or delivery of bonds if the court determines that loss or damage…”
Pike v. Gunyou, 491 N.W.2d 288 (Minn. 1992).
· cites it 22× “Accordingly, we confine our review to scrutiny of the decision of the trial court dismissing the plaintiffs’ action with prejudice for failure to file the requisite surety bond in accordance with Minn.Stat. § 562.02 (1990). Opinion and concurrence of the court of appeals vacated…”
Anderson v. Pearson, 400 N.W.2d 210 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 12× “” Minn.Stat. § 562.02 (1984). According to the statute, the action “shall be dismissed with prejudice” if a required bond is not filed within the time allowed by *213 the trial court.”
Gram v. Vill. of Shoreview, 106 N.W.2d 553 (Minn. 1960).
· cites it 8× “On August 11, defendants moved the court for an order requiring plaintiffs to furnish a surety bond under § 562.02. Based upon affidavits and oral testimony in which it appeared that substantial damages might develop from the inability of Shoreview to deliver its bonds because…”
Bridgewater Tel. Co. v. City of Monticello, 765 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “[6] Bridgewater asserts that it was prejudiced by the denial of leave to amend because it will likely need to post a second surety bond to bring this claim as a separate action.”
Ashenbrenner v. City of East Grand Forks, 102 N.W.2d 28 (Minn. 1960).
· cites it 3× “Whether the district court was correct in requiring a bond in the sum of $250,000 is dependent upon the construction of § 562.02, which provides in part that: *371 “Whenever any action * * * is brought * * * questioning directly or indirectly the existence of any condition or…”
Adelman v. Onischuk, 135 N.W.2d 670 (Minn. 1965).
“The District moved to dismiss the complaint and also to require the plaintiffs to post a bond under § 562.02. The trial court denied these motions and a motion by plaintiffs for an injunction, but refused to require the county board to pay its share of the costs for the project.”
Minnesota Vikings Football Club, Inc. v. Metro. Council, 289 N.W.2d 426 (Minn. 1979).
· cites it 2× “At this time, the district court also considered the motion of defendant council that the plaintiffs be required to furnish a surety bond as required by Minn.Stat. § 562.02 (1978) of plaintiffs questioning the action of a public body.”
In re Winona Cty. Mun. Solid Waste, 439 N.W.2d 56 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “" Minn.Stat. § 562.02 (1988). Although Winona County has not participated in the appeal, the solid waste incinerator it proposes to construct is being challenged, and the county is entitled to make this motion.”
Sisto v. Hous. & Redevelopment Auth. of Duluth, 104 N.W.2d 529 (Minn. 1960).
“In that case the bond was required under the provisions of § 562.02, which applies to public bodies generally and for all practical purposes is identical with §§ 462.”
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.