Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 353.63 (2026)

Policy

✓ current as of May 2026

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

It is the recognized policy of the state that special consideration should be given to employees of governmental subdivisions who devote their time and skills to protecting the property and personal safety of others. Since this work is hazardous, special provisions are hereby made for retirement pensions, disability benefits and survivors benefits based on the particular dangers inherent in these occupations. The benefits provided in sections 353.63 to 353.68 are more costly than similar benefits for other public employees since they are computed on the basis of a shorter working lifetime taking into account experience which has been universally recognized. This extra cost should be borne by the employee and employer alike at the ratio of 40 percent employee contributions and 60 percent employer contributions.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1975–2008 · leading case: In Re Matter of Hildebrandt, 701 N.W.2d 293 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Matter of Hildebrandt, 701 N.W.2d 293 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “1, 2 (2004) to limit duty[related] disability benefits to those hazardous situations envisioned by Minn.Stat. § 353.63 (2004) and not to ordinary personality disputes in the office setting.”

In re Pera Police & Fire Plan Line of Duty Disability Benefits of Brittain, 724 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 10× “The PERA Board suggests that these additional words are incorporated into the subdivision that provides act of duty benefits by the statement of legislative policy contained in Minn.Stat. § 353.63 (2004), which provides in part: It is the recognized policy of the state that…”

Duluth Firemen's Relief Ass'n v. City of Duluth, 361 N.W.2d 381 (Minn. 1985). · cites it 2× “1 During the 1970’s, there was considerable agitation to eliminate both police and firefighters’ relief associations, which were primarily funded through annual levies in the local community, and to include those employees under the general provisions of Public Employees…”

In re the Pera Police & Fire Plan Line of Duty Disability Benefits of Brittain, 705 N.W.2d 576 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “” 1 Although Minn.Stat. § 353.63, which describes the purpose or *580 policy of the special benefits for police officers and firefighters, refers to the hazardous nature of the work, it does not specifically delineate that certain benefits are available only if earned during a…”

Schmidt v. City of Columbia Heights, 696 N.W.2d 413 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 353.63 (2004) (noting that police officers and firefighters deserve special consideration due to the hazardous character of their work).”

In Re the Disability Earnings Offset of Masson, 753 N.W.2d 755 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. §§ 353.63 (articulating pertinent public policy that “special consideration should be given to employees of governmental subdivisions who devote their time and skills to protecting the property and personal safety of others”), 353.”

In Re Brittain, 724 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 10× “The PERA Board suggests that these additional words are incorporated into the subdivision that provides act of duty benefits by the statement of legislative policy contained in Minn.Stat. § 353.63 (2004), which provides in part: It is the recognized policy of the state that…”

In Re Brittain, 705 N.W.2d 576 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 9× “1, in conjunction with Minn.Stat. § 353.63 (2004), which states: It is the recognized policy of the state that special consideration should be given to employees of governmental subdivisions who devote their time and skills to protecting the property and personal safety of…”

Columbia Heights Police Relief Ass'n v. City of Columbia Heights, 233 N.W.2d 760 (Minn. 1975). “1, applicable to the city of Mankato, provides: “Notwithstanding any provision of general or special law to the contrary, all police officers and fire fighters first employed by the city of Mankato on and after July 1, 1971 shall be members of the public employees police and…”

Fairmont Policeman's Benefit Ass'n v. City of Fairmont, 437 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). “] Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all persons first employed by the city of Fairmont after the effective date of this act as police officers shall be members of the public employees police and fire fund established by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 353.63 to 353.68 and…”

Col. Hts. Police Rel. Ass'n v. City of Col. Hts., 233 N.W.2d 760 (Minn. 1975). “1, applicable to the city of Mankato, provides: "Notwithstanding any provision of general or special law to the contrary, all police officers and fire fighters first employed by the city of Mankato on and after July 1, 1971 shall be members of the public employees police and…”

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.