Bindinglaw

MN · rules

Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 312

Review of Referee's Findings or Recommendations

activein force · 2012-05-01 – presentact-effective-date

Review of decisions of district court referees is controlled by applicable statutes and orders of the supreme court.

History

(Amended effective May 1, 2012.) Task Force Comment - 1991 Adoption This rule is derived from Second District Rules 11.03 and 11.04. Task Force Comment - 1991 Adoption This rule is derived from Second District Rule 11.05. Advisory Committee Comment - 2012 Amendment Rule 312 is amended to replace the former rule, which established now-obsolete procedures for review of the findings or recommendations of a district court referee in family law matters. Family court referees are now used in limited circumstances in two districts, and the processes followed are established by statute and supreme court orders. Under Minnesota Statutes, section 484.65, subdivision 9, recommended orders and findings of Fourth Judicial District referees are subject to confirmation by a district court judge, and once confirmed by the district court judge the orders and findings may be appealed directly to the court of appeals. Essentially the same is true in the Second Judicial District under a series of orders establishing a pilot project that is still operating. The history of the pilot project is set forth by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in its Special Term Opinion in Culver v. Culver, 771 N.W.2d 547 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009): The pilot project came into existence in the Second Judicial District in 1996. See Minnesota Laws 1996, chapter 365, section 2 (allowing Second Judicial District to implement pilot project assigning related family matters to single judge or referee); In re Second Judicial Dist. Combined Family, Civil Harassment, Juvenile Probate Jurisdiction Pilot Project, No. CX-89-1863 (Minn. Apr. 10, 1996) (suspending, in light of pilot project, Minn. Gen. R. Pract. 312.01, which recites procedure for district-court review upon filing of petition for review). The suspension is still in effect. See Minnesota Laws 1998, chapter 367, article 11, section 26 (extending pilot-project legislation); Minnesota Laws 2000, chapter 452, section 1 (same); Minnesota Laws 2002, chapter 242 (same); In re Second Judicial Dist. Combined Family, Civil Harassment, Juvenile Probate Jurisdiction Pilot Project, No. CX-89-1863 (Minn. June 17, 1998) (extending suspension); (Minn. May 23, 2000) (same); (Minn. June 3, 2002) (extending suspension until further order of supreme court). Id., n.1.

Provenance

Source
revisor.mn.gov
Retrieved
2026-09-15
Edition
2026-09-14
Content hash
f61efac4ba35dd1df97f0cbf08a28c4cbdf6e7ae0bb93dc42ec898f468f33369
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.
Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 312 — Review of Referee's Finding… · binding.law