Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 571.51 (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[Repealed]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MS 1988 [Repealed, 1990 c 606 art 3 s 39]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 16
cases, 1950–1995 · leading case: Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320 (1980).
Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320 (1980). “cases where the garnishee denies liability, the judgment creditor may move the court at any time before the garnishee is discharged, on notice to both the judgment debtor and the garnishee, for leave to file a supplemental complaint making the latter a party to the action, and…”
Buysse v. Baumann-Furrie & Co., 448 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 1989). “Minn.Stat. § 571.51 (1988). When the St. Paul Companies averred in its answer that its “affiliated” company, St.”
Hartfiel v. McLennan, 430 N.W.2d 215 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). “The supplemental complaint in garnishment, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 571.51, was served on August 25, 1986.”
Johnson Motor Co., Inc. v. Cue, 352 N.W.2d 114 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). “This is an appeal from an order of the trial court denying appellant-creditor’s motion to bring a supplemental complaint against respondent-garnishee pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 571.51 (1982). We affirm. FACTS On May 4, 1983 a judgment in the amount of $45,613.”
Poor Richards, Inc. v. Chas. Olson & Sons & Wheel Serv. Co., 380 N.W.2d 225 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). “Poor Richards moved for leave to file a supplemental complaint to add respondents as parties to the action pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 571.51 (1984). The trial court denied appellant’s motion.”
Nelson v. Engen, 347 N.W.2d 57 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). “The Nelsons then moved for an order under Minn.Stat. § 571.51 allowing them to file a supplemental complaint making National a party to the suit against Engen for the purpose of determining whether National must pay the judgment that had been entered.”
Savchuk v. Rush, 245 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. 1976). “Savchuk then moved the trial court for permission to file a supplemental complaint making the garnishee, State Farm, a party to the action pursuant to § 571.51. Rush and State Farm responded by moving for dismissal on the following grounds: Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,…”
Savchuk v. Randal Rush, 245 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. 1976). “Savchuk then moved the trial court for permission to file a supplemental complaint making the garnishee, State Farm, a party to the action pursuant to § 571.51. Rush and State Farm responded by moving for dismissal on the following grounds: Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,…”
Rohrer v. Rick, 529 N.W.2d 406 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). “[1] Poor Richards involved Minn.Stat. § 571.51 (1984), which has since been repealed and replaced by Minn.”
Altman v. Levine & Tanz, Inc., 97 N.W.2d 460 (Minn. 1959). “The Levine defendants suggest that the motion to’ file a supplemental complaint should not have been granted even as to the Tanz defendants who were personally served.”
Henderson v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 43 N.W.2d 786 (Minn. 1950). “50) unless the latter successfully controverts the disclosure in the manner specified by statute (§ 571.51), namely, by filing a supplemental complaint for the raising of issues which may be tried only after plaintiff has obtained a judgment in his favor in the main action.”
Johnson v. Milgo Indus., Inc., 458 F. Supp. 297 (D. Minnesota 1978). “In an effort to secure the remainder of the award, Creditor instituted garnishment proceedings against United States Fire Insurance Company (USFIC) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 and Minnesota Statute § 571.51. USFIC had issued a comprehensive catastrophe…”
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.