Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 586. MANDAMUS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 586.08 (2026)

Pleadings, Issues, Trial

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

No pleading or written allegation, other than the writ, answer, and demurrer, shall be allowed. They shall be construed and amended, and the issues tried, and further proceedings had, in the same manner as in a civil action. The demurrer need not be noticed for argument, but the issues raised thereby may be disposed of as are other objections to the pleadings.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1987–2016 · leading case: Nolan & Nolan v. City of Eagan, 673 N.W.2d 487 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nolan & Nolan v. City of Eagan, 673 N.W.2d 487 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 586.08 (2002). Thus, the statute provides that pleadings or other written allegations are not permitted in a mandamus proceeding.”
Schiltz v. City of Duluth, 449 N.W.2d 439 (Minn. 1990). · cites it 2× “It reasoned that a motion for a new trial is not required to preserve issues for appellate review in a special proceeding and then equated the motion with one to amend or vacate an appeal-able order; it ultimately concluded that such an order denying the motion was not…”
Popp v. Cnty. of Winona, 430 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “Appellants objected to the taking of evidence at the November 30th hearing, because no formal answer had been filed, and because Minn.Stat. § 586.08 (1986) provides, in part: No pleading or written allegation, other than the writ, answer, and demurrer, shall be allowed.”
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Baillon Co., 503 N.W.2d 799 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “” Similarly, Minn.Stat. § 586.09 (1988) provides for an appeal from the district court to the court of appeals “as in other civil cases.”
Pawelk v. Camden Twp., 415 N.W.2d 47 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 586.08 (1984). The mandamus statute provides for proceedings in the same manner as in a civil action, but it does not guarantee a trial in all cases.”
Kaibel v. Mun. Bldg. Comm'n, 829 F. Supp. 2d 779 (D. Minnesota 2011). · cites it 2× “” 3 Minn.Stat. § 586.08. Although the issuance of a writ of mandamus- is not a common proceeding, Minnesota courts have historically considered relief in mandamus on occasions such as this, where public employees allege that their dismissal, or adverse employment action, was in…”
Kjellbergs, Inc. v. State of Minnesota, by its Comm'r of Transp. (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “12.02([e]).” Pederson v. Am. Lutheran Church, 404 N.”
Hous. & Redevelopment Auth. Ex Rel. City of Fridley v. Main Street Fridley Props., LLC, 755 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× ““A court order approving the public use or public purpose, necessity, and authority for the taking is final unless an appeal is brought within 60 days after service of the order on the party.”
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.