Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 14.045 (2026)

Agencies; Limits On Penalties And Fines

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

Subdivision 1.Limit on penalties.

An agency may not, under authority of rule, levy a total fine or penalty of more than $700 for a single violation unless the agency has specific statutory authority to levy a fine in excess of that amount.

Subd. 2.Criminal penalty.

An agency may not, by rule, establish a criminal penalty unless the agency has specific statutory authority to do so.

Subd. 3.Factors.

(a) If a statute or rule gives an agency discretion over the amount of a fine, the agency must take the following factors into account in determining the amount of the fine:

(1) the willfulness of the violation;

(2) the gravity of the violation, including damage to humans, animals, and the natural resources of the state;

(3) the history of past violations;

(4) the number of violations;

(5) the economic benefit gained by the person by allowing or committing the violation; and

(6) other factors that justice may require.

(b) For a violation after an initial violation, the following factors must be considered in addition to the factors in paragraph (a):

(1) similarity of previous violations to the current violation to be penalized;

(2) time elapsed since the last violation;

(3) number of previous violations; and

(4) response of the person to the most recent previous violation identified.

Subd. 4.Effect on other law.

This section does not affect the right of an agency to deny a permit, revoke a license, or take similar action, other than the imposition of a fine, even if the cost of the denial, revocation, or other action to the affected party exceeds $700.

Subd. 5.Application.

Subdivisions 1, 2, and 4 apply only to fines and penalties imposed under rules for which notice of intent to adopt rules is published after July 1, 1996.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: In Re Qwest's Wholesale Serv. Quality Standards, 702 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. 2005).
In Re Qwest's Wholesale Serv. Quality Standards, 702 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. 2005). · cites it 10× “Qwest further argues that the MPUC order also circumvents the limitations on an agency's authority to levy penalties under Minn.Stat. § 14.045, subd. 1 (2004), [6] which places limits on an agency's ability to levy a fine or penalty.”
In Re Qwest's Wholesale Serv. Quality Standards, 678 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “Qwest claims that this reliance is misplaced because Garvey does not address Minn.Stat. § 14.045, subd. 1 (1998) (an agency "may not, under authority of rule, levy a total fine or penalty of more than $700 for a single violation unless the agency has specific statutory authority…”
Fine v. Bernstein, 726 N.W.2d 137 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “” Since the factors used to determine Bernstein’s penalty, willfulness and gravity of *150 the violation, are consistent with those mandated in Minn.Stat. § 14.045, subd. 3(a), we conclude the penalty is valid.”
Repub. Party of Minnesota v. Nathan Miller, Relators, Attorney Gen. Keith Ellison, ... (Minn. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 6× “Under Minnesota Statutes section 14.045, subdivision 3 (2022), OAH must consider several factors in determining the amount of a fine, including the “willfulness of the violation” and the “gravity of the violation.”
Minnesota Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Nicole Blissenbach (D. Minnesota 2025). · cites it 3× “§ 14.045, subd. 3. The potential fines under the Statute are thus not punitive in nature, and so the Excessive Fines Clause is unlikely to apply.”
In the Matter of the Licensing Order Issued to North Sierra Constr., LLC, & Louis Dee Sierra (Minn. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 14.045 , subd. 3(a)(1)-(6) (2024).”
MN Chapter of Assoc. Builders v. Nicole Blissenbach (8th Cir. 2025). “See Minn. Stat. § 14.045 , subd. 3(a)(1)– (6).”
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.