Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 120.04
As amended through June 5, 2024
Upon receipt of a $550 filing fee, the clerk of the appellate courts shall file the petition. All documents and briefs must be in the form specified in Rule 132.02. The petition and proof of service shall be filed with the clerk of the appellate courts, but the reviewing court may direct that additional copies be provided. Service of all documents and briefs may be made personally, by mail, or electronically if authorized or required by order of the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 120.04
The primary purpose of these amendments is to modify extraordinary writ procedure to allow a party to seek relief without requiring that party to sue the trial court. This change follows in some respects the amendments made to the federal rules of appellate procedure in 1997. The rule, however, retains most of the remaining procedural requirements of the existing rule inasmuch as they work well in practice in Minnesota.
The rule eliminates any requirement that the trial court judge be named as a party. It is still possible to name the judge as a respondent in the writ proceeding, but this rule does not require it. This change is intended to make it less likely that the seeking of the writ will interfere with the orderly handling of ongoing proceedings in the trial court. The rule also eliminates the requirement that a proposed writ be filed because that document is of little use to the courts.
The forms relating to this rule are also amended as part of these changes.
Advisory Committee Comment-2014 Amendments
Rule 120.04 is amended to provide for electronic filing of extraordinary writ applications. The rule provides for service electronically using the appellate courts' e-filing and e-service system where authorized by supreme court order. As is true throughout these rules, only a single copy of any document is required to be filed, regardless of the method of filing.
Rule 120 is also amended to change references to "papers" to "documents." This change is not intended to change the interpretation of the rule, other than to recognize that not all appellate court filings are in paper format.