Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 586.02 (2026)
Issuance On Information
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The writ shall issue on the information of the party beneficially interested, but it shall not issue in any case where there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2024 · leading case: N. States Power Co. v. Minnesota Metro. Council, 684 N.W.2d 485 (Minn. 2004).
N. States Power Co. v. Minnesota Metro. Council, 684 N.W.2d 485 (Minn. 2004). “Minn.Stat. § 586.02 (2002). Minnesota Statutes § 586.”
Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2006). “Mendota Golf's mandamus action is based on the city's duty under Minn.”
State v. Hoelzel, 639 N.W.2d 605 (Minn. 2002). “See Minn.Stat. § 586.02 (2000). Under these particular circumstances, we will construe the state’s appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus.”
McShane v. City of Faribault, 292 N.W.2d 253 (Minn. 1980). “Section 586.02 provides that mandamus "shall not issue in any case where there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”
Madison Equities, Inc. v. Robert L. Crockarell, 889 N.W.2d 568 (Minn. 2017). “” Minn. Stat. § 586.02 (2016). To obtain a writ of mandamus, Madison Equities must therefore show that (1) the district court “failed to perform an official duty clearly imposed by law,” (2) which caused “a public wrong specifically injurious to [Madison Equities],” and (3) for…”
Nolan & Nolan v. City of Eagan, 673 N.W.2d 487 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). “Minn.Stat. § 586.02 (2002). Minnesota law further provides that: [n]o pleading or written allegation, other than the writ, answer, and demurrer, shall be allowed.”
Friends of Animals & Their Env't v. Nichols, 350 N.W.2d 489 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). “Minn.Stat. § 586.02 (1982). FATE failed to meet either of these statutory requirements.”
Kaibel v. Mun. Bldg. Comm'n, 829 F. Supp. 2d 779 (D. Minnesota 2011). “” Minn.Stat. § 586.02. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have claims for damages and adequate remedies at law.”
Kramer v. Otter Tail Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 647 N.W.2d 23 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). “” Minn.Stat. § 586.02 (2000). The county contends that a writ of certiorari to this court is the appropriate procedure to review the county’s denial of respondents’ application.”
Chanhassen Chiropractic Ctr., P.A. v. City of Chanhassen, 663 N.W.2d 559 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). “” Minn.Stat. § 586.02 (2002). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy based on equitable principles and is awarded at the discretion of the district court.”
Coyle v. City of Delano, 526 N.W.2d 205 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). “Minn.Stat. §§ 586.02, .04 (1992); State ex rel.”
Johnson v. Minnesota Dep't of Human Servs., 565 N.W.2d 453 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). “Minn.Stat. § 586.02, .04 (1992). Id. Mandamus will issue only when the petitioner has shown the existence of a legal right to the act demanded which is so clear and complete as not to admit any reasonable controversy.”
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.