Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 589. HABEAS CORPUS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 589.01 (2026)

Writ Of Habeas Corpus; Who May Apply

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

A person imprisoned or otherwise restrained of liberty, except persons committed or detained by virtue of the final judgment of a competent tribunal of civil or criminal jurisdiction, or by virtue of an execution issued upon the judgment, may apply for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain relief from imprisonment or restraint. For purposes of this section, an order of commitment for an alleged contempt or an order upon proceedings as for contempt to enforce the rights or remedies of a party is not a judgment, nor does attachment or other process issued upon these types of orders constitute an execution.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Brian Keith Schnagl, a/k/a Brian Keith Schnagel, Appellant/Cross-Respondent., 859 N.W.2d 297 (Minn. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Brian Keith Schnagl, a/k/a Brian Keith Schnagel, Appellant/Cross-Respondent., 859 N.W.2d 297 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 6× “According to the State, the proper procedure is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 589.01 (2014). We begin by examining the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court and the two procedures in question, and then we determine whether judicial…”
Beaulieu v. Minnesota Dep't of Human Servs., 798 N.W.2d 542 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “See Minn.Stat. §§ 589.01 to .35 (2010). The relevant chapter begins: A person imprisoned or otherwise restrained of liberty, except persons committed or detained by virtue of the final judgment of a competent tribunal of civil or criminal jurisdiction, or by virtue of an…”
State v. Schwartz, 628 N.W.2d 134 (Minn. 2001). · cites it 2× “Nonetheless, we note that appellant challenged the commissioner's authority via a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Minn.Stat. § 589.01 (2000), and a petition for postconviction relief under Minn.”
Rud v. Fabian, 743 N.W.2d 295 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “2004) (construing Minn.Stat. § 589.01 (2000)), review denied (Minn.”
State Ex Rel. Guth v. Fabian, 716 N.W.2d 23 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “2004) (quoting Minn.Stat. § 589.01 (2000)), review denied (Minn.”
State Ex Rel. Marlowe v. Fabian, 755 N.W.2d 792 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 589.01 (2006); Loyd v. Fabian, 682 N.”
Loyd v. Fabian, 682 N.W.2d 688 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 589.01 (2000). The scope of inquiry in habeas corpus proceedings is limited to constitutional issues, jurisdictional challenges, claims that confinement constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and claims that confinement violates applicable statutes.”
Kipp v. Saetre, 454 N.W.2d 639 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “01 (1988) provides: A person imprisoned or otherwise restrained of liberty, except persons committed or detained by virtue of the final judgment of a competent tribunal of civil or criminal jurisdiction, or by virtue of an execution issued upon the judgment, may apply for a writ…”
Maiers v. Roy, 847 N.W.2d 524 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Does appellant’s sentence violate Due Process or Double Jeopardy? ANALYSIS A petition for habeas corpus permits a person to challenge the legality of restraints on liberty on constitutional or jurisdictional grounds.”
Roth v. Comm'r of Corr., 759 N.W.2d 224 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 589.01 (2006). “A writ of ha-beas corpus may also be used to raise claims involving fundamental constitutional rights and significant restraints on a defendant’s liberty or to challenge the conditions of confinement.”
Ricky James Bedell v. Tom Roy, Comm'r of Corr., 853 N.W.2d 827 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “ISSUE Does the record reasonably support the district court’s conclusion that appellant failed to present evidence showing that he would have been required to discuss his conviction offense in order to participate in a prison chemical-dependency-treatment program? ANALYSIS The…”
State of Minnesota v. Joel Patrick Rodriguez, 889 N.W.2d 332 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “1 See generally Minn. Stat. §§ 589.01 -.35 (2014) (providing for issuance of writ of habeas corpus upon application and order to sheriff requiring transportation of prisoner for appearance before district court).”
Show all 37 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.