Minnesota Lawyer
Print, Digital & Mobile
Monthly auto-renew
$32
----------
1 Year
$369
----------
2 Years
$529
----------
Digital & Mobile Only
1 Year
$329
Monthly auto-renew
$32
----------
1 Year
$369
----------
2 Years
$529
----------
Digital & Mobile Only
1 Year
$329
Enter your user name and password in the fields above to gain access to the subscriber content on this site.
Your subscription includes one set of login credentials for your exclusive use. Security features have been integrated on this site: If someone signs in with your credentials while you are logged in, the site will automatically close your ongoing login and you will lose access at that time. To inquire about group subscriptions for your organization, contact Shaun Witt.
If you feel your login credentials are being used by a second party, contact customer service at 877-615-9536 for assistance in changing your password.Already a paid subscriber but not registered for online access yet? For instructions on how to get premium web access, click here.
As a note, there is a general practice rule for Conciliation Court that allows non-attorney representation Minn. R. Prac. Dist. Ct. Rule 512(c) http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Rules/GRP_Tit_VI_01-01-2010.pdf. Many Conciliation Courts (such as Hennepin) follow this rule, but some follow the case law and some do not apply this rule to Housing Court. However, when there is an appeal to a District Court, this rule no longer applies because the case will not be in Conciliation Court anymore. See World Championship Fighting, Inc. v. Janos, 609 N.W.2d 263 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
Thanks to a great JDs Rising reader for wanting more clarification. The applicability of rules and case law (in many areas) including this one are often applied differently in each courtroom you go in.
The 301 Clifton case (Idaho-owned LLC registered in Nevada and not even licensed in MN, appearing w/o attorney in appellate court after losing in District Court) and Nicollet Restoration, Inc. (1990, regarding a corporation before MN 322B regarding LLCs was even written) seem to be invoked in specific situations where representation was dubious at best. In a District court case (Eviction, Dist. 9, non-metro) involving the owner of a single member LLC–me–wouldn’t the court show some flexibility and even leniency regarding representation of one’s own single member LLC? What other precedents might convince a judge one way or the other here?