Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 13.51 (2026)

Assessor's Data

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Subdivision 1.Generally.

The following data collected, created and maintained by political subdivisions are classified as private, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12, or nonpublic depending on the content of the specific data:

Data contained on sales sheets received from private multiple listing service organizations where the contract with the organizations requires the political subdivision to refrain from making the data available to the public.

Subd. 2.Income property assessment data.

The following data collected by political subdivisions and the state from individuals or business entities concerning income properties are classified as private or nonpublic data pursuant to section 13.02, subdivisions 9 and 12:

(a) detailed income and expense figures;

(b) average vacancy factors;

(d) anticipated income and expenses;

(e) projected vacancy factors; and

(f) lease information.

Subd. 3.Data on income of individuals.

Income information on individuals collected and maintained by political subdivisions to determine eligibility of property for class 4d under sections 273.128 and 273.13, is private data on individuals as defined in section 13.02, subdivision 12.

Subd. 4.Request for legal discovery of income property assessment data.

Upon request by a party to a responsible authority or designee for legal discovery of income property assessment data, as defined in subdivision 2, the requesting party shall notify the owner of record of the property.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1999–2007 · leading case: EOP-Nicollet Mall, L.L.C. v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 723 N.W.2d 270 (Minn. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

EOP-Nicollet Mall, L.L.C. v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 723 N.W.2d 270 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 20× “51 of the MGDPA, Minn.Stat. § 13.51 (2004). The tax court applied the balancing test set forth in Minn.”

Irongate Enter. Inc. v. Cnty. of St. Louis, 736 N.W.2d 326 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 12× “But Irongate argues that the legislature did not believe that leases were included under the 60-day rule disclosures, based on a 1991 amendment to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, specifically *330 Minn.Stat. § 13.51, subd. 2 (1990), concerning income property…”

Rahr Malting Co. v. Cnty. of Scott, 632 N.W.2d 572 (Minn. 2001). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 13.51, subd. 2 (2000). The protective order provided that the classification of the information was to continue “[djuring the pen-dency of this action, including any and all appeals.”

Op. Atty. Gen. 624a-3 (Minn. Att'y Gen. 1999). “Id, § 13.51 (3d Ed.). Any decision of the governing body is of course subject to challenge as unfair and unreasonable, but it is not invalid simply because it was based on a recommendation from a consultant hired by the commission for that purpose.”

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.