Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 571.43 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026

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

MS 1988 [Repealed, 1990 c 606 art 3 s 39]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1950–1984 · leading case: Savchuk v. Rush, 245 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Savchuk v. Rush, 245 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. 1976). · cites it 7× “2, is both more recent in origin and more specific in language than § 571.43. [3] Because we perceive an irreconcilable conflict between these two statutory provisions, § 571.”

Miller v. Shugart, 316 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 1982). · cites it 2× “Milbank says there has never been a trial on the merits, that the purported judgment, insofar as it is concerned, is still an “unliquidated tort claim,” and that, consequently, the sum due plaintiff is not “due absolutely,” and so garnishment does not lie.”

Savchuk v. Randal Rush, 245 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. 1976). · cites it 7× “2, is both more recent in origin and more specific in language than § 571.43. 3 Because we perceive an *485 irreconcilable conflict between these two statutory provisions, § 571.”

Rintala v. Shoemaker, 362 F. Supp. 1044 (D. Minnesota 1973). · cites it 10× “Minn. Stat. § 571.43 (1) (1969). The contingency must be one that controls the obligation to pay and not simply the timing or form of payment.”

Moratzka v. Bill Simek Distrib., Inc. (In Re Brinker), 12 B.R. 936 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1981). “1 provides: “Except as provided in sections 571.43 and 571.50, service of the garnishee summons upon the garnishee shall attach and bind, to respond to final judgment in the action, all personal property of the judgment debtor in his possession or under his control and all…”

Nw. Nat. Bank, Etc. v. Hilton & Assocs., 136 N.W.2d 646 (Minn. 1965). · cites it 3× “1, provides: “Except as provided in sections 571.43 and 571.50, service of the garnishee summons upon the garnishee shall attach and bind, to respond to final judgment in the action, all personal property of the defendant in his possession or under his control and all…”

Henderson v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 43 N.W.2d 786 (Minn. 1950). “§ 571.43 (1). Clearly, the obligation of the garnishee to pay for materials purchased from defendant Martin was absolute and not subject to any contingency; therefore, the garnishee was then indebted to Martin unless at the time the garnishee possessed a setoff in its favor…”

Jones Press, Inc. v. Motor Travel Servs., Inc., 176 N.W.2d 87 (Minn. 1970). “Except as provided in sections 571.43 and 571.50, service of the garnishee summons upon the garnishee shall attach and bind, to respond to final judgment in the action, all personal property of the defendant in his possession or under his control and all indebtedness owing by…”

Widgren v. Massie, 352 N.W.2d 420 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). “1983) provides that: Except as provided in sections 571.43 and 571.50, service of the garnishee summons upon the garnishee shall attach and bind, to respond to final judgment in the action, all personal property of the judgment debtor in his possession or under his control and…”

Polzin v. Merila, 103 N.W.2d 198 (Minn. 1960). “1, provides: “Except as provided in sections 571.43 and 571.50, service of the garnishee summons upon the garnishee shall attach and bind, to respond to final judgment in the action, all personal property of the defendant in his possession or under his control and all…”

Holman v. Gen. Ins. Co. of Am., 231 N.W.2d 81 (Minn. 1975). “” And as we have held with respect to application of § 571.43, at the time of the garnishment there was no absolute obligation on General’s part to pay the Muskies.”

— Minn. Stat. § 571.43(1) — 3 cases

Rintala v. Shoemaker, 362 F. Supp. 1044 (D. Minnesota 1973). “Minn. Stat. § 571.43 (1) (1969). The contingency must be one that controls the obligation to pay and not simply the timing or form of payment.”

Savchuk v. Rush, 245 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. 1976). “2, is both more recent in origin and more specific in language than § 571.43. [3] Because we perceive an irreconcilable conflict between these two statutory provisions, § 571.”

Savchuk v. Randal Rush, 245 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. 1976). “2, is both more recent in origin and more specific in language than § 571.43. 3 Because we perceive an *485 irreconcilable conflict between these two statutory provisions, § 571.”

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.