Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 566. FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 566.05 (2026)

[Repealed]

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

[Repealed, 1998 c 253 s 80]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1978–2013 · leading case: Koski v. Johnson, 837 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Koski v. Johnson, 837 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “2d 34, 40 (Minn.App.2002) (noting that legislature “repeal[ed] the unlawful detainer provisions of chapter 566 and enacted] new provisions to be codified at chapter 504A” and later “repealed] chapter 504A and replaced] it with what is now codified at chapter 504B regarding…”
Berg v. Wiley, 264 N.W.2d 145 (Minn. 1978). · cites it 2× “Default judgment against a tenant not present and served by posting may be procured in a week to 10 days.”
Fed. Land Bank of Saint Paul v. Obermoller, 429 N.W.2d 251 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 566.05 (1986). The rules of civil procedure provide that a party asserting a claim may move for summary judgment “at any time after the expiration of 20 days from the commencement of the action or after service of a motion for summary judgment by the adverse…”
Priordale Mall Investors v. Farrington, 411 N.W.2d 582 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “After several months, negotiations were apparently abandoned and this first action was dismissed because it was not heard within 14 days of service of the summons and complaint as required by Minn.Stat. § 566.05 (1984). On December 5, 1985, Priordale commenced the present…”
Eden Park Apts. v. Weston, 529 N.W.2d 732 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 6× “It is undisputed that the summons and complaint which appellant received complied with Minn.Stat. § 566.05 (1992): The person complaining [in an unlawful detainer action] shall file a complaint with the court, describing the premises of which possession is claimed, stating the…”
Hoglund-Hall v. Kleinschmidt, 381 N.W.2d 889 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “22 (1984), as allegedly required by Minn.Stat. § 566.05, and therefore, the complaint should have been dismissed.”
Times Square Shopping Ctr., LLP v. Tobacco City, Inc., 585 N.W.2d 791 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “) Here, the eviction summons (a standard form) did not state that the original complaint had been filed, but it did state: ‘YOU ARE SUMMONED to appear before this Court on the date, time and place indicated below for a hearing on the attached Complaint.”
— Minn. Stat. § 566.05(a) — 2 cases
Koski v. Johnson, 837 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). “2d 34, 40 (Minn.App.2002) (noting that legislature “repeal[ed] the unlawful detainer provisions of chapter 566 and enacted] new provisions to be codified at chapter 504A” and later “repealed] chapter 504A and replaced] it with what is now codified at chapter 504B regarding…”
Times Square Shopping Ctr., LLP v. Tobacco City, Inc., 585 N.W.2d 791 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). “) Here, the eviction summons (a standard form) did not state that the original complaint had been filed, but it did state: ‘YOU ARE SUMMONED to appear before this Court on the date, time and place indicated below for a hearing on the attached Complaint.”
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.