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

Minn. Stat. § 645.37 (2026)

Repeal And Reenactment

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

When a law is repealed and its provisions are at the same time reenacted in the same or substantially the same terms by the repealing law, the earlier law shall be construed as continued in active operation. All rights and liabilities incurred under such earlier law are preserved and may be enforced.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1946–2017 · leading case: State v. Smith, 899 N.W.2d 120 (Minn. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Smith, 899 N.W.2d 120 (Minn. 2017). · cites it 20× “The State and the dissent also urge us to unilaterally adopt the functional equivalent of a residual clause for past versions of the statute by relying on the repeal-and-reenactment statute, Minn. Stat. § 645.37 (2016). Under the repeal-and-reenactment statute, when a law is…”
In Re Instructions to Construe Basic Resolution 876 of the Port Auth. of St. Paul, 772 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. 2009). · cites it 8× “But the 1987 law is more precisely described as a repeal and re-enactment under Minn.Stat. § 645.37 (2008). Thus, Minn.Stat.”
State v. Cook, 617 N.W.2d 417 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “(citing Minn.Stat. § 645.37 (1990)). Thus, the court concluded that convictions under Minn.”
State v. Robinson, 476 N.W.2d 896 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 645.37 (1990). All rights and liabilities incurred under the earlier law are preserved and may be enforced.”
State v. Chicago Great W. Ry. Co., 25 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 1946). · cites it 3× “…the material sections in this action, were reenacted in substantially the same terms by L. 1945, c. 21, §§ 1, 2, 3, and 5, said §§ 219.68 and 219.74 should be construed as continued in active operation as to matters involved in this action and that plaintiff should be…”
Vee v. Ibrahim, 769 N.W.2d 770 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 645.37 (2008). But in directing its placement as it did here, the legislature has relocated the law within the scope of a specifically defining statute.”
Mitchell v. City of St. Paul, 36 N.W.2d 132 (Minn. 1949). “391 contained a provision (§5) that it shall apply to cities having home rule charters.”
Op. Atty. Gen. 159a-3 (Minn. Att'y Gen. 1998). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 645.37 t 1996) provides in relevant part that: When a law is repealed and its provisions are at the same time reenacted in the same or substantially the same terms by the repealing la\v.”
Op. Atty. Gen. 159a-3 (Minn. Att'y Gen. 1998). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat.§ 645.37 t l 996) provides in rek\·am pan that: When a la\v is repealed and irs provisions are at the same :ime ree:mcted in the same or substantially the same tierrns by the repealing law.”
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.