Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 586. MANDAMUS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 586.12 (2026)

Issues Of Fact; Trial

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

Issues of fact in proceedings commenced in a district court shall be tried in the county in which the defendant resides, or in which the material facts stated in the writ are alleged to have taken place. Either party shall be entitled to have any issue of fact tried by a jury, as in a civil action. In any case commenced in the supreme court or court of appeals, where there is an issue of fact, upon request of either party, that court shall transmit the record to the proper district court, which shall try the issue in the same manner as if the proceeding had been commenced there. A change of venue may be granted as in other cases.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1982–2015 · leading case: Grossman Investments v. State Ex Rel. Humphrey, 571 N.W.2d 47 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Grossman Investments v. State Ex Rel. Humphrey, 571 N.W.2d 47 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 586.12 (1996) (party is entitled to have fact issues tried by a jury).”
Alevizos v. Metro. Airports Comm'n, 317 N.W.2d 352 (Minn. 1982). · cites it 2× “After stating that the question of a constitutional taking was a question of law for the court to decide, we went on to say, “where the facts are disputed the mandamus court should utilize a jury to resolve the disputes preparatory to its decision on the ultimate question of…”
Clark v. Ritchie, 787 N.W.2d 142 (Minn. 2010). · cites it 2× “Related to the mandamus issue is petitioners’ motion for an evidentiary hearing, either before a referee appointed to find facts for this court or before a district court as a mandamus proceeding, see Minn.Stat. § 586.12 (2008). On the merits, petitioners contend that Article…”
Coyle v. City of Delano, 526 N.W.2d 205 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “71 required the humane society to permit “easy perusal by the public” of its records regarding seized animals; (2) the humane society refused to supply the required information; and (3) fact issues relating to how long the dog was held were immaterial to the humane society’s…”
Zaluckyj v. Rice Creek Watershed Dist., 639 N.W.2d 70 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). “Minn.Stat. 586.12 (mandamus), 555.09 (declaratory judgment) (2000).”
Mauer v. Kircher, 587 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “spondents' writ of mandamus, the trial court concluded: (1) the shareholders' voting agreement and proxy, irrevocable proxy, and durable power of attorney agreements between Marjorie Kircher and Jane Mauer are valid; (2) Jane Mauer has the authority to demand a meeting on behalf…”
Ralph A. Fredlund v. Eureka Twp. Bd. of Supervisors (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 586.12 (2014). But if no factual dispute exists, no right to a jury trial exists.”
Dirk Fisher v. State of Minnesota, Dep't of Transp. (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “” Minn. Stat. § 586.12 (2014). But an inverse-condemnation petitioner is not entitled to a jury trial if the undisputed facts show that no compensable taking occurred.”
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.