Cited by

“Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s “authority to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions which the court assumes to decide.”

we held that, “[a] sheriff, being neither permitted nor required to inquire into the validity of an order placed in his hands for execution, is protected by the order even though the proceedings in which it was issued are erroneous and voidable.” The Robinette holding 5 Our decision in

And a party cannot attack subject matter jurisdiction just because they disagree with the result of the decision, as subject matter jurisdiction “comprehends the power to decide a particular case wrongly as well as rightly.”

The concept of subject-matter jurisdiction “refers to a court’s authority ‘to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions’ presented to the court for its decisi on.” Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc., ().

moved to vacate the 2011 judgment as void, arguing that it effected an unconstitutional taking and the district court “had no subject matter jurisdiction or authority to make an unconstitutional Order.” But as the district court observed in rejecting this argument, subject-matter jurisdiction “comprehends the power to decide a particular case wrongly as well as rightly.” see also Park Elm Homeowner’s Ass’n v. Mooney, (“A judgment is not void .

The concept of subject-matter jurisdiction “refers to a court’s authority ‘to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions’ presented to the court for its decisi on.” Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc., ().

(citing Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526, .

See Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526, see also Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc., (“Subject matter jurisdiction is a court’s ‘statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.’ ” (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998))).

Inc., (quoting Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526 , ).

“Jurisdiction of the subject matter means authority to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions which the court assumes to decide.” Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526

Put differently, subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority “ ‘to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions’ presented to the court for its decision.” Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc., (quoting Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526, ); see also Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc.

-13 (Minn.2012); see also Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526

Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526

See Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526 , (describing our jurisdiction as the authority to “hear and determine a particular class of actions ” (emphasis added)).

Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526

See Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526

See Robinette V. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526

Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526

n.1981) (prosecutors referred to as “ ‘quasi-judicial’ officials” because they “exercise a discretionary judgment”); Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 240-41 , (in performing duties to a client, attorney is immune from suits by third parties so long as he acts as a quasi-judicial officer, determining his obligations to the public and to his client); Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 533 , (duties of county welfare board involved “inquiry of fact and the exercise of judgment based on such inqu

4 See Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526 , (noting that subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority to hear and decide an issue in controversy).

Twenty-one years later, the supreme court declared that “[i]t is the imperative duty of a sheriff to execute the process and orders of a court of competent jurisdiction.” Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 525

Early Minnesota cases describe subject-matter jurisdiction as “authority to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions which the court assumes to decide.” Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526 , (citing Reid, 200 Minn. 599 , 275 N.W.

In Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521 , this court held that “[a] public officer whose functions are judicial or quasi-judicial is not liable to persons injured by the honest exercise of his judgment within his jurisdiction, however erroneous his judgment may be.” Id.

201 Minn. 622 , Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521 , Johnson v. County of Steele, 240 Minn. 154 , McCorkell v. City of Northfield, 266 Minn. 267

22 § 261.09; Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521 , 8 N. W. (2d) 800 .

Roberts v. Hense, 135 Minn. 99 , .” *97 In support of its contention, respondent relies upon Reid v. Independent Union of all Workers, 200 Minn. 599 , , 120 A. L. R. 297, and Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526 , 8 N. W. (2d) 800, 804 .