Last amended July 1, 2013 · Last verified July 1, 2026
In one sentenceRule 1 makes the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure the default playbook for every civil suit in the state’s district courts, directs courts to apply them for a just, speedy, and inexpensive result, and since 2013 requires both the court and the parties to keep the cost and effort of a case in proportion to what is at stake.
Full Text of Rule 1
Text size
These rules govern the procedure in the district courts of the State of Minnesota in all suits of a civil nature, with the exceptions stated in Rule 81. They shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.
It is the responsibility of the court and the parties to examine each civil action to assure that the process and the costs are proportionate to the amount in controversy and the complexity and importance of the issues. The factors to be considered by the court in making a proportionality assessment include, without limitation: needs of the case, amount in controversy, parties’ resources, and complexity and importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.
Advisory Committee Comments
Advisory Committee Comments--1996 Amendments
This change conforms the rule to its federal counterpart. The amendment is intended to make clear that the goals of just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of litigation are just as important--if not more important--in questions that do not involve interpretation of the rules. These goals should guide all aspects of judicial administration, and this amendment expressly so states.
Amendment History
(Amended effective July 1, 2013.)
Plain-English Summary
Rule 1 opens the rule book by staking out its own reach. It covers every civil suit in Minnesota’s district courts, with the exceptions Rule 81 carves out for special proceedings like small claims and probate. Courts are told to construe and administer the rules to get to a just result quickly and without needless expense — language added in 1996 to match the federal rules.
A second paragraph, added in 2013 after a Minnesota Supreme Court task force studied the cost of civil litigation, goes further than the federal rule it was modeled on. It makes proportionality an explicit, shared duty: both the court and the parties must examine each case to keep its process and cost in line with the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, and the complexity of the issues at stake.
In practice, Rule 1 is not something a party cites for relief on its own. It is the lens through which every other rule — how much discovery is reasonable, how quickly a motion should be decided — gets read.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Rule 1 require someone to do?
Nothing on its own. It sets the standard courts and parties are expected to meet under every other rule: a just result reached without unnecessary delay or expense, with effort scaled to what the case is worth.
What is the proportionality requirement Rule 1 mentions?
Added in 2013, it asks the court and the parties to weigh the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, and the complexity of the issues before deciding how much process a dispute deserves — for example, how much discovery is warranted.
Is Rule 1 the same as the federal rule it is based on?
Only in part. The “just, speedy, and inexpensive” language matches the federal rule, but Minnesota’s 2013 proportionality paragraph goes further than the current federal text.
Source & verification. The rule text and Advisory Committee Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure (Minn. R. Civ. P. 1). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota (Minn. Stat. § 480.051). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 1, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as:scope of the rulespurpose of the rulesproportionalityjust speedy and inexpensive
Advisory Committee Comments--1996 Amendments
This change conforms the rule to its federal counterpart. The amendment is intended to make clear that the goals of just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of litigation are just as important--if not more important--in questions that do not involve interpretation of the rules. These goals should guide all aspects of judicial administration, and this amendment expressly so states.