Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 10A.07 (2026)

Conflicts Of Interest

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Disclosure of potential conflicts.

(a) A public official or a local official elected to or appointed by a metropolitan governmental unit who in the discharge of official duties would be required to take an action or make a decision that would substantially affect the official's financial interests or those of an associated business, unless the effect on the official is no greater than on other members of the official's business classification, profession, or occupation, must take the following actions:

(1) prepare a written statement describing the matter requiring action or decision and the nature of the potential conflict of interest;

(2) deliver copies of the statement to the official's immediate superior, if any; and

(3) if a member of the legislature or of the governing body of a metropolitan governmental unit, deliver a copy of the statement to the presiding officer of the body of service.

If a potential conflict of interest presents itself and there is insufficient time to comply with clauses (1) to (3), the public or local official must orally inform the superior or the official body of service or committee of the body of the potential conflict.

(b) For purposes of this section, "financial interest" means any ownership or control in an asset that has the potential to produce a monetary return.

Subd. 2.Required actions.

(a) If the official is not a member of the legislature or of the governing body of a metropolitan governmental unit, the superior must assign the matter, if possible, to another employee who does not have a potential conflict of interest.

(b) If there is no immediate superior, the official must abstain, if possible, by assigning the matter to a subordinate for disposition or requesting the appointing authority to designate another to determine the matter. The official shall not chair a meeting, participate in any vote, or offer any motion or discussion on the matter giving rise to the potential conflict of interest.

(c) If the official is a member of the legislature, the house of service may, at the member's request, excuse the member from taking part in the action or decision in question.

(d) If an official is not permitted or is otherwise unable to abstain from action in connection with the matter, the official must file a statement describing the potential conflict and the action taken. A public official must file the statement with the board and a local official must file the statement with the governing body of the official's political subdivision. The statement must be filed within a week of the action taken.

Subd. 3.Interest in contract; local officials.

This section does not apply to a local official with respect to a matter governed by sections 471.87 and 471.88.

Subd. 4.Exception; judges.

Notwithstanding subdivisions 1 and 2, a public official who is a district court judge, an appeals court judge, or a supreme court justice is not required to comply with the provisions of this section.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1987–2007 · leading case: United States v. Loren George Jennings, 487 F.3d 564 (8th Cir. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Loren George Jennings, 487 F.3d 564 (8th Cir. 2007). · cites it 5× “Under both the Third and First Circuit’s tests, a violation of a state disclosure statute is evidence of a public official’s intent to defraud the state’s citizens of their right to his honest services.”

N. States Power Co. v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 414 N.W.2d 383 (Minn. 1987). · cites it 4× “Conflict of interest is defined for public officials as that situation requiring a decision that would substantially affect one’s financial interests or those of a business with which one' is associated, Minn.Stat. § 10A.07, subd. 1 (1987). Finally, a conflict with regard to…”

United States v. Loren Jennings (8th Cir. 2007). · cites it 6× “Under both the Third and First Circuit’s tests, a violation of a state disclosure statute is evidence of a public official’s intent to defraud the state’s citizens of their right to his honest services.”

Op. Atty. Gen. 90 (Minn. Att'y Gen. 1994). · cites it 2× “such as the notice and non-participation requirements contained in Section 10A.07 applicable to certain state and metropolitan local officials and in Section 469.”

Op. Atty. Gen 852 (Cr. Ref. 64, 184a) (2006). “See Minn. Stat. §§ 10A.07, 13.601, subd. 1, 270B.”

— Minn. Stat. § 10A.07(1) — 2 cases

United States v. Loren George Jennings, 487 F.3d 564 (8th Cir. 2007). “Under both the Third and First Circuit’s tests, a violation of a state disclosure statute is evidence of a public official’s intent to defraud the state’s citizens of their right to his honest services.”

United States v. Loren Jennings (8th Cir. 2007). “Under both the Third and First Circuit’s tests, a violation of a state disclosure statute is evidence of a public official’s intent to defraud the state’s citizens of their right to his honest services.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.