Minn. R. Civ. P. 81

History

(Amended effective January 1, 1997.) Advisory Committee Comment - 1996 Amendment Rule 81.01(b) should be abrogated to reflect the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court in Rice v. Connolly, 488 N.W.2d 241, 244 (Minn. 1992), in which the court held: "[W]e have determined that quo warranto jurisdiction as it once existed in the district court must be reinstated and that petitions for the writ of quo warranto and information in the nature of quo warranto shall be filed in the first instance in the district court." The court recognized its retention of original jurisdiction under Minnesota Statutes, section 480.04 (1990), and also indicated its "future intention to exercise that discretion in only the most exigent of circumstances. We comment further that the reinstatement of quo warranto jurisdiction in the district court is intended to exist side by side with the appropriate alternative forms of remedy heretofore available...." 488 N.W.2d at 244. The continued existence of a rule purporting to recognize a procedural remedy now expressly held to exist can only prove misleading or confusing in future litigation. Abrogation of the rule is appropriate to obviate any lack of clarity. Although Rule 81.01(a) is not amended, the committee recommends that the list of special proceedings exempted from the rules by this rule be updated. An updated Appendix A is included in these proposed amendments.