Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 13. GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 13.10 (2026)

Data On Decedents

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Definitions.

As used in this chapter:

(a) "Confidential data on decedents" are data which, prior to the death of the data subject, were classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification as confidential data.

(b) "Private data on decedents" are data which, prior to the death of the data subject, were classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification as private data.

(c) "Representative of the decedent" is the personal representative of the estate of the decedent during the period of administration, or if no personal representative has been appointed or after discharge of the personal representative, the surviving spouse, any child of the decedent, or, if there is no surviving spouse or children, the parents of the decedent.

Subd. 2.Classification of data on decedents.

Upon the death of the data subject, private data and confidential data shall become, respectively, private data on decedents and confidential data on decedents. Private data on decedents and confidential data on decedents shall become public when ten years have elapsed from the actual or presumed death of the individual and 30 years have elapsed from the creation of the data. For purposes of this subdivision, an individual is presumed to be dead if either 90 years elapsed since the creation of the data or 90 years have elapsed since the individual's birth, whichever is earlier, except that an individual is not presumed to be dead if readily available data indicate that the individual is still living.

Subd. 3.Rights.

Rights conferred by this chapter on individuals who are the subjects of private or confidential data shall, in the case of private data on decedents or confidential data on decedents, be exercised by the representative of the decedent. Nonpublic data concerning a decedent, created or collected after death, are accessible by the representative of the decedent. Nothing in this section may be construed to prevent access to appropriate data by a trustee appointed in a wrongful death action.

Subd. 4.Court review.

Any person may bring an action in the district court located in the county where the data is being maintained or, in the case of data maintained by a state agency, in any county, to authorize release of private data on decedents or confidential data on decedents. Individuals clearly identified in the data or the representative of the decedent may be given notice if doing so does not cause an undue delay in hearing the matter and, in any event, shall have standing in the court action. The responsible authority for the data being sought or any interested person may provide information regarding the possible harm or benefit from granting the request. The data in dispute shall be examined by the court in camera. The court may order all or part of the data to be released to the public or to the person bringing the action. In deciding whether or not to release the data, the court shall consider whether the harm to the surviving spouse, children, or next of kin of the decedent, the harm to any other individual identified in the data, or the harm to the public outweighs the benefit to the person bringing the action or the benefit of the public. The court shall make a written statement of findings in support of its decision.

Subd. 5.Adoption records.

Notwithstanding any provision of this or any other chapter, adoption records shall be treated as provided in sections 259.53, 259.61, 259.79, and 259.83 to 259.88.

Subd. 6.Retention of data.

Nothing in this section may be construed to require retention of government data, including private data on decedents or confidential data on decedents, for periods of time other than those established by the procedures provided in section 138.17, or any other statute.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1987–2010 · leading case: Wynkoop v. Carpenter, 574 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wynkoop v. Carpenter, 574 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. 1998). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 13.10, subd. 4 (1996). In contrast, “one or more surviving next of kin” may request an accident report from the commissioner of public safety.”
Moorhead Econ. Dev. Auth. v. Anda, 789 N.W.2d 860 (Minn. 2010). “Sackman, Nichols on Eminent Domain § 13.10 (3d ed.2009). For example, the Connecticut Supreme Court has held that the costs of remediation of contaminated property are relevant to determine the value of property taken by eminent domain because such evidence would impact a market…”
City of Bemidji v. Beighley, 410 N.W.2d 338 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 12× “On appeal, Beighley claims that Bemidji City Code § 13.10, subd. 30, unconstitutionally discriminates by excluding single wide mobile homes from Bemidji city limits.”
Illinois Farmers Ins. Co. v. Schmuckler, 603 N.W.2d 138 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). “The principles of subrogation allow an insurer, once it has indemnified its insured for a first-party loss, to recover payments made to the insured by a third party responsible for that loss. 46A C.J.S. § 1470, at 366 (1993).”
— Minn. Stat. § 13.10(4)(iii) — 1 case
Illinois Farmers Ins. Co. v. Schmuckler, 603 N.W.2d 138 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). “The principles of subrogation allow an insurer, once it has indemnified its insured for a first-party loss, to recover payments made to the insured by a third party responsible for that loss. 46A C.J.S. § 1470, at 366 (1993).”
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.