Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 566.08 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1998 c 253 s 80]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 3 cases, 1987–2008 · leading case: Riehm v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 745 N.W.2d 869 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Riehm v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 745 N.W.2d 869 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “08 (1994) contemplates prompt disposition of these summary proceedings, the district court has considerable discretion in scheduling matters and in furthering what it has identified as the interests of judicial administration and economy”).”

Rice Park Props. v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, 532 N.W.2d 556 (Minn. 1995). · cites it 2× “It is our view that, while Minn.Stat. § 566.08 (1994) contemplates prompt disposition of these summary proceedings, the district court has considerable discretion in scheduling matters and in furthering what it has identified as the interests of judicial administration and…”

Soukup v. Molitor, 409 N.W.2d 253 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “The statute provides that in an unlawful detainer action: the court shall hear and determine the action, unless it shall adjourn the trial as provided in section 566.08, but either party may demand a trial by jury.”

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.