Rule 81.
Rule 81. Applicability; in
General
81.01 Statutory and Other Procedures(a)Procedures Preserved.These rules do not govern pleadings, practice and procedure in the statutory and other proceedings listed in Appendix A insofar as they are inconsistent or in conflict with the rules.
(b) AbrogatedStatutes Superseded.Subject to provision (a) of this rule, the statutes listed in Appendix B and all other statutes inconsistent or in conflict with these rules are superseded insofar as they apply to pleading, practice, and procedure in the district court.
(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.