Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cook v. Trovatten, 274 N.W. 165.

108 citing documents.

Richard Joseph Terfehr v. Buffalo-Red River Watershed District, Wilkin ... Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Richard Joseph Terfehr v. Buffalo-Red River Watershed District, Wilkin ... Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A ministerial duty, meanwhile, is “absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.” Johnson, d at 46 ().
Douglas W. Wenker, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
al’s conduct will be deemed ministerial in nature if it arises from duties that are “‘absolute, certain, and imperative, [and] involv[e] merely execution of a specific duty arising fr om fixed and designated facts, ’” thereby “leaving nothing to the discretion of the official.” (alteration in original) ().
Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski 842 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 2014
Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski 842 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 2014
As noted previously, a ministerial duty is “simple and definite, leaving nothing to the discretion of the official.” Kelly, d at 664 (citing Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
JW Ex Rel. BRW v. 287 INTER. DIST. 761 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
J.W. ex rel. B.R.W. v. 287 Intermediate District 761 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
JW Ex Rel. BRW v. 287 INTER. DIST. 761 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
J.W. ex rel. B.R.W. v. 287 Intermediate District 761 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Ministerial duties have been defined as “absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.” Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista 713 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Thompson v. City of Minneapolis 707 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 2006
Mumm v. Mornson 708 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 2006
Mumm v. Mornson 708 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 2006
A ministerial act is one that is “ ‘absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.’ ” Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
Thompson v. City of Minneapolis 707 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 2006
A ministerial act, in contrast, is “ ‘absolute, certain-, and imperative, involving merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.’ ” Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
Brown v. City of Bloomington 706 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Brown v. City of Bloomington 706 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See Elwood, d at 678 (stating that police officers, being charged with the duty to prevent crime and enforce the laws, are not purely “ministerial officers,” in that many of their duties are of an “executive character involving the exercise of discretion”) (quoting Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Independent School District 11 678 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 2004
Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Independent School District 11 678 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 2004
4 *656 We have frequently reiterated our longstanding definition of a ministerial duty as one that is “absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.” (quoting Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 598 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1999
Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 598 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1999
Ministerial duties are “absolute, certain, and imperative, [and] in-volv[e] merely execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.” Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
S.W. v. Spring Lake Park School District No. 16 592 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
S.W. v. Spring Lake Park School District No. 16 592 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
While a discretionary act reflects professional goals and factors of a situation, a ministerial duty is “one in which nothing is left to discretion; it is ‘absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.’ ” Wiederholt, d at 315 (quoting Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 581 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 581 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(quoting Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
Kari v. City of Maplewood 582 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1998
Kari v. City of Maplewood 582 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1998
In contrast, a ministerial act is “absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.” Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations 582 N.W.2d 216 Minn. 1998
Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations 582 N.W.2d 216 Minn. 1998
(quoting Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis 581 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1998
Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis 581 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1998
In contrast, a ministerial duty is one in which nothing is left to discretion; it is “absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.” Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
S.W. v. Spring Lake Park School District No. 16 566 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
S.W. v. Spring Lake Park School District No. 16 566 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(quoting Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations 563 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations 563 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
The supreme court has defined a ministerial duty as “ ‘absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.’” Johnson, d at 46 (quoting Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
Davis v. Hennepin County 559 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Davis v. Hennepin County 559 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(quoting Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 553 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1996
Johnson v. State 553 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1996
Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 553 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1996
An official’s duty is ministerial when it is “absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.” Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
Johnson v. State 553 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1996
This court has defined a ministerial duty as “absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.” Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
Ireland v. Crow's Nest Yachts, Inc. 552 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Ireland v. Crow's Nest Yachts, Inc. 552 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Unprotected ministerial acts are “absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.” Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
Nisbet v. Hennepin County 548 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Nisbet v. Hennepin County 548 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Rico, d at 107 (quoting Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
Watson ex rel. Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 540 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Watson ex rel. Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 540 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Ministerial duties are “absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.” Cook v. Trovatten 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
Johnson v. State 536 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Johnson v. State 536 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Ministerial acts are “absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.” Koelln, d at 919 (quoting Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.
Duellman v. Erwin 522 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Duellman v. Erwin 522 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Minnesota courts have held that police officers charged with the duty to prevent *380 crime and enforce laws are not purely “ministerial officers,” and that many of their duties have an “executive character involving the exercise of discretion.” Elwood, d at 678 (quoting Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224 , 274 N.W.