Minn. Stat. § 542.09

Section 542.09 requires an action to be tried in a county where a defendant resides or where the cause of action arose.

VanHercke v. Eastvold · filed 1987-05-19

Minn.Stat. § 542.09 (1986) requires that all actions be tried in a county in which one or more of the defendants reside or in which the cause of action arose. Both standards would require venue in Morrison County.

Section 542.09 permits an action against two defendants to be filed in the county where one defendant resides.

Riddle v. Ringwelski · filed 1990-02-20

We note that “several” is generally defined as a number more than two, Black’s Law Dictionary 1232 (5th ed.1979), and the case was properly filed in the county of residence of one of two defendants. Minn.Stat. § 542.09.

Section 542.09 permits venue where the alleged negligent failure to perfect a mechanics’ lien occurred, even if counsel was retained and the client suffered damages elsewhere.

Rouse Mechanical, Inc. v. Dahl · filed 1992-09-01

Even though counsel was retained in Hennepin County and the client claims damages there, venue in Ramsey County is proper because counsel is alleged to have acted in a negligent manner with regard to the perfection of a mechanics’ lien in Ramsey County, where this suit is brought.

Section 542.09 permits venue where the cause of action, or any part of it, arose.

Matter of Burns · filed 1995-10-17

Venue is proper where the cause of action or some part thereof arose. Minn.Stat. § 542.09 (1994). Allegations in the order to show cause concern conduct that occurred in Hen-nepin county.

Section 542.09 permits an action to be brought in a county where the cause of action or any part of it arose.

Anderson v. Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance · filed 1960-11-18

When § 542.09 was amended in 1955 it gave to the plaintiff an additional proper county in which to commence his action, that is, where the cause of an action or a part thereof arose.

Section 542.09 permits a foreclosure action to be tried where the cause of action arose, but the plaintiff must prove that the breach occurred in the chosen county.

Yellow Manufacturing Acceptance Corp. v. Zimmerman · filed 1963-04-26

Since plaintiff had the burden of proving that the place of payment was in Ramsey County in order to support its theory that its cause of action arose there in whole or in part, and since this burden was not adequately sustained, venue in the foreclosure action was properly transferred to Otter Tail County and the district court of that county was justified in denying the motion to remand.

Section 542.09 permits trial in a county where the cause of action or some part of it arose.

First National Bank in Moorhead v. F. M. Distributors, Inc. · filed 1963-11-15

Under §§ 542.09 and 542.10, as they now stand, and under the facts of this case, plaintiff is entitled to a remand of its action to Clay County for trial on the ground that the cause of action or some part thereof arose in said county.

Section 542.09 allows a plaintiff to have an action tried in a county where the cause of action or some part of it arose.

Agricultural Insurance v. Midwest Technical Development Corp. · filed 1964-09-18

It is true that as § 542.09 now reads a plaintiff has a right to have the case tried in the county in which the cause of action or some part of it arose.

Section 542.09 permits venue in the county where a contract was formed because that formation is part of the cause of action.

Industrial Rubber Applicators, Inc. v. Eaton Metal Products Co. · filed 1969-10-31

We find, therefore, that an essential part of plaintiff’s cause of action, namely the formation of the contract, occurred in Hibbing, St. Louis County. The conclusion follows that plaintiff has demonstrated its right to retain venue in St. Louis County.

Section 542.09 permits venue in a county where any part of the cause of action arose, including the county where an offer was accepted.

STATE EX REL. AMERICAN HOIST AND DERRICK, INC. v. Carew · filed 1972-06-09

In the instant case the offer was accepted by Mr. Erickson in Koochiching County. It follows that some part of the cause of ... action arose in that county and the order appealed from should be affirmed.

For a contract action, venue lies in a county where facts establishing formation, performance, or breach occurred; preliminary negotiations alone do not establish venue there.

Johnny's Plumb. & H., Inc. v. Sperry Rand C.-Univac D. · filed 1974-02-15

As applied to the instant case, we have indicated that the contract was formed when accepted by performance in Jackson County. The breach, if any, occurred by defendant’s failure to send payment to plaintiff from defendant’s office in Ramsey County to which plaintiff mailed its demand for payment. Accordingly, we hold that no part of the cause of action arose in Martin County and that venue should not have been removed to that county.

Under § 542.09, performance of a contract condition in a county supports venue there only if both parties contemplated at the time of contracting that the condition would be performed there.

Briggs Transportation Co. v. Ranzenberger · filed 1974-04-05

The performance of any condition precedent of a contract in a particular county does not automatically give a party the right to initiate a contract action in that county. Rather, it must first be shown that at the time of contracting both parties contemplated that a particular condition would be performed in a particular county.

Section 542.09 permits a negligence action to be tried in a county where alleged negligent acts form part of the cause of action.

FARMERS & MER. STATE BANK OF LAMBERTON v. Ebbesen · filed 1974-05-17

Minn. St. 542.09 provides in part that an action “shall be tried in a county in which one or more of the defendants reside when the action is begun or in which the cause of action or some part thereof arose.” ... We hold that these alleged acts of negligence alone constitute sufficient grounds for our holding that a part of the cause of action arose in Dakota County and that consequently this action was properly venued there.

Section 542.09 favors trial in the defendant’s county of residence unless the plaintiff shows that the cause of action or some part of it arose in the chosen county.

Johnson v. Minnesota Farm Bureau Marketing Corp. · filed 1975-05-30

This is in accordance with the precedential preference for allowing the action to be tried in the county of the defendant’s residence absent a strong showing that venue is proper in a county “in which the cause of action or some part thereof arose.” Petitioner has failed to sustain that burden.

Section 542.09 requires a plaintiff seeking venue outside the defendant’s county of residence to establish that the cause of action or some part of it arose in the chosen county.

Granite Falls Municipal Hospital v. Cole · filed 1965-02-05

Aside from the foregoing, this court has held that the burden rests upon plaintiff to establish that his cause of action or some part of it arose in the county where venue is sought when defendant is a resident of some other county.

Section 542.09’s general venue rules yield to § 542.03 when that special venue provision applies.

Ebenezer Society v. Minnesota State Board of Health · filed 1974-09-13

Since § 542.03 refers to an action “enumerated in sections 542.02 to 542.08,” if applicable, § 542.03 takes precedence over the general venue rules of § 542.09.

Section 542.09 permits a declaratory judgment action to interpret a contract to be brought in the county where the contract was formed.

Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. · filed 1989-01-03

Petitioner has established no compelling reason for this court to distinguish between venue in a breach of contract action and this declaratory judgment action. Both require interpretation of the contract and venue is therefore proper where the contract was formed.

Section 542.09 permits an action where a defendant resides or where some part of the cause of action arose, but a plaintiff can waive the right to that venue by acquiescing in a transfer and filing a note of issue in the new county.

Albrecht v. Sell · filed 1961-08-25

It is clear that initially plaintiff had a right under the 1955 amendment to commence this suit in Renville County. We hold, however, that having acquiesced in the change of venue during the period from May 3, 1960, to November 28, 1960, and having filed and served his note of issue in Brown County, plaintiff has waived his right to remand the matter to Renville County under Minnesota law.