Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 586. MANDAMUS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 586.01 (2026)

Issuance Of Writ, Judicial Discretion Not Controlled

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

The writ of mandamus may be issued to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station. It may require an inferior tribunal to exercise its judgment or proceed to the discharge of any of its functions, but it cannot control judicial discretion.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1945–2025 · leading case: Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 8× “See Minn.Stat. § 586.01; N. States Power Co. v.”
State v. Hoelzel, 639 N.W.2d 605 (Minn. 2002). · cites it 6× “See Minn.Stat. § 586.01 (2000); Minn. R. CivApp.”
State v. Wilson, 632 N.W.2d 225 (Minn. 2001). · cites it 6× “he first issues we consider are (1) whether mandamus is available to vacate a district court order, issued before expiration of the six-month period, dismissing a complaint for failure to timely comply with a request for trial, and (2) whether mandamus is available to compel the…”
State v. Burrell, 743 N.W.2d 596 (Minn. 2008). · cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 586.01 (2006). We have held, however, that "[t]he proper remedy to pursue when a motion to remove has been denied is * * * a writ of prohibition.”
N. States Power Co. v. Minnesota Metro. Council, 684 N.W.2d 485 (Minn. 2004). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 586.01 (2002). In order to obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show that the defendant: (1) failed to perform an official duty clearly imposed by law, id.”
State v. Hart, 723 N.W.2d 254 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 8× “” Minn.Stat. § 586.01 (2004). 3 Mandamus, however, is “an extraordinary legal remedy.”
Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista, 713 N.W.2d 916 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 586.01 (2004); McIntosh v. Davis, 441 N.”
McIntosh v. Davis, 441 N.W.2d 115 (Minn. 1989). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 586.01 provides: The writ of mandamus may be issued to any inferior tribunal, * * * to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.”
In Re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Against N.P., 361 N.W.2d 386 (Minn. 1985). · cites it 2× “Initially we note that it is not always clear whether petitioner is seeking a writ of prohibition or a writ of mandamus under each petition, but we find it unnecessary to clarify that in this particular case.”
State v. Davis, 592 N.W.2d 457 (Minn. 1999). · cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 586.01 (1998); Baker v. Connolly Cartage Corp.”
Silver Bay Area Citizens Concerned for Quality Educ. v. Lake Superior Sch. Dist. No. 381, 448 N.W.2d 92 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “1984) (emphasis in original); see Minn. Stat. § 586.01 (1988). Mandamus may issue to compel a ministerial act; it is not properly issued when the official has discretion with respect to the act in question.”
Pigs R US, LLC v. Compton Twp., 770 N.W.2d 212 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “1995); see Minn. Stat. § 586.01 (2008) (addressing, when mandamus may issue).”
Show all 59 citing cases →
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.