Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 645. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AND RULES
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 645.35 (2026)

Effect Of Repeal

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The repeal of any law shall not affect any right accrued, any duty imposed, any penalty incurred, or any proceeding commenced, under or by virtue of the law repealed. Any civil suit, action, or proceeding pending to enforce any right under the authority of the law repealed shall and may be proceeded with and concluded under the laws in existence when the suit, action, or proceeding was instituted, notwithstanding the repeal of such laws; or the same may be proceeded with and concluded under the provisions of the new law, if any, enacted.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1945–2017 · leading case: State v. Kirby, 899 N.W.2d 485 (Minn. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Kirby, 899 N.W.2d 485 (Minn. 2017). · cites it 6× “The second statute, Minn. Stat. § 645.35 (2016), is another general savings clause.”
Olsen v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 427 N.W.2d 707 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 6× “Minn.Stat. § 645.35 (1986). The rule of statutory interpretation concerning the repeal of a statute during the pendency of an action allows the court to apply either old law or the newly enacted law.”
Hauer v. Integrity Mut. Ins. Co., 352 N.W.2d 406 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 4× “On cross-motions for summary judgment the trial court granted Hauer’s motion, ruling that, notwithstanding legislative repeal of the mandatory requirement that insurers offer underinsured coverage to their policyholders, the Minnesota General Savings Clause, Minn.Stat. § 645.35…”
United States v. United States Coin & Currency, 401 U.S. 715 (1971). · cites it 2× “4a (1948); Minnesota: Minn. Stat. § 645.35 (1967); Mississippi: Miss.”
In re Instructions to Construe Basic Resolution 876 of the Port Auth. of St. Paul, 772 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. 2009). · cites it 4× “474 because of the saving clause for repealed laws in Minn. Stat. § 645.35 (2008). But the 1987 law is more precisely described as a repeal and re-enactment under Minn.”
State v. Chicago Great W. Ry. Co., 25 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 1946). · cites it 9× “That in Section 8 of said chapter it *508 was specifically provided that ‘Minnesota Statutes 1941, Section 645.35, shall not be construed to apply to this Act.”
In re the Complaint of the Minnesota Dep't of Com. for Comm'n Action Against AT & T, 759 N.W.2d 242 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “462, which had expired, were retained through the general saving statute, Minn.Stat. § 645.35? ANALYSIS On judicial review of an action taken by an administrative agency, the party seeking review has the burden of proof.”
Cnty. of Hennepin ex rel. Bartlow v. Brinkman, 378 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. 1985). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 645.35 (1984). This court has ruled that an action on appeal shall be regarded as a pending action: “An *793 appeal suspends a judgment and deprives it of its finality, and that lack of finality continues until the appeal is dismissed or until the appellate court…”
Palatine Nat'l Bank of Palatine v. Strom (In re Strom), 97 B.R. 532 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1989). · cites it 3× “Minnesota Statutes Section 645.35 authorizes Palatine to choose whether to proceed under the repealed Uniform Fraudulent Conveyances Act or the newly enacted Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act.”
Ogren v. City of Duluth, 18 N.W.2d 535 (Minn. 1945). · cites it 2× “§ 10933-22); and (2) “The repeal of any law shall not affect any right accrued, any duty imposed, any penalty incurred, or any proceeding commenced, under or by virtue of the law repealed,” § 645.35 (§ 10933-36). We think that both statutory rules of construction can be given…”
Brunet v. Murphy, 135 P.3d 714 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “4 (a) (2006); Minn.Stat. Ann. § 645.35 (2006); Mo. Ann.”
E.T.O., Inc. v. Town of Marion, 375 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 1985). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 645.35 (1984). Were there not the reasons given below for exempting Fergie’s Bar, the statutory prohibition would apply since the bar is within 1,500 feet of a public school and outside of a city.”
Show all 19 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.