Last amended January 1, 1997 · Last verified July 1, 2026
In one sentenceRule 81 explains how the civil procedure rules interact with other Minnesota statutes and special proceedings, preserving certain listed procedures and superseding conflicting statutes.
aProcedures 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.
bProcedures Abolished. [Abrogated].
cStatutes Superseded.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of this rule, the statutes listed in Appendix B and all other statutes inconsistent or in conflict with these rules are superseded insofar as they apply to pleading, practice, and procedure in the district court.
81.02Appeals to District Courts These rules do not supersede the provisions of statutes relating to appeals to the district courts.
81.03Rules Incorporated into Statutes Where any statute heretofore or hereafter enacted, whether or not listed in Appendix A, provides that any act in a civil proceeding shall be done in the manner provided by law, such act shall be done in accordance with these rules.
Advisory Committee Comments
Advisory Committee Comments--1996 Amendments
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: "We 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.
Amendment History
(Amended effective January 1, 1997.)
Plain-English Summary
Minnesota has many specialized statutory proceedings alongside its general civil procedure rules, and Rule 81 sorts out how they fit together. Rule 81.01 says these rules do not govern the statutory and other proceedings listed in a separate appendix, but only to the extent those proceedings conflict with the rules. Where a listed statute does conflict, the statute is superseded for purposes of pleading, practice, and procedure in district court, along with any other conflicting statute not specifically listed.
Rule 81.02 clarifies that these rules do not override statutes governing appeals to the district courts. Rule 81.03 addresses the reverse situation: when a statute says something must be done in the manner provided by law, that statute is understood to mean the act should be done according to these Rules of Civil Procedure.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do the Rules of Civil Procedure always override a specific Minnesota statute governing a special proceeding?
Not automatically. Rule 81.01 says the rules do not govern proceedings listed in the appendix unless the statute is inconsistent or in conflict with the rules.
Do these rules change how appeals to district court work?
No. Rule 81.02 states that these rules do not supersede statutes relating to appeals to the district courts.
If a statute says an act must be done in the manner provided by law, which procedure applies?
Rule 81.03 says that act should be done in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, whether or not the statute is listed in the appendix.
Source & verification. The rule text and Advisory Committee Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure (Minn. R. Civ. P. 81). 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
Advisory Committee Comments--1996 Amendments
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: "We 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.