Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hoppe v. Klapperich, 28 N.W.2d 780.

63 citing documents.

Terance Simmons, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The only time judicial immunity is not applicable is when the judge acts “wholly” outside their jurisdiction and “in a nonjudicial capacity.”
Waymouth Farms, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Adherent Laboratories, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Conduct 1.2(a); Rucker, d at 120 (stating that an agent’s duty in a principal- agent relationship is to act on behalf of the principal, an attorney’s duty in an attorney - client relationship is to act on behalf of the client and on behalf of “the public as an officer of the court in the administration of justice”); Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 240 - 41, (stating that when an attorney’s duties owed to his client conflict with those owed “to the public as an officer of the court in the adm
Elfi E. Janssen v. Lommen, Abdo, Cole, King & Stageberg, P. A., Sibley Holdings, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Elfi E. Janssen v. Lommen, Abdo, Cole, King & Stageberg, P. A., Sibley Holdings, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
knowingly participates with his client in the perpetuation of a fraudulent or unlawful act”); Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 241, (“In the performance of his duties to his client, an 10 attorney enjoys immunity from liability to a third person insofar as he does not materially depart from his character as a quasi-judicial officer charged with responsibility for the
Rucker v. Schmidt 794 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2011
Rucker v. Schmidt 794 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2011
Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 240
Rucker v. Schmidt 768 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Rucker v. Schmidt 768 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 241 , (stating that an attorney is liable to a third party for knowingly becoming an “instrumentality for the perpetration of fraud”).
Peterka v. Dennis 764 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2009
Peterka v. Dennis 764 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2009
See, (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
Pahnke v. Anderson Moving and Storage 720 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Pahnke v. Anderson Moving and Storage 720 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
The court later explained further that “[a] sheriff is protected from liability for acts done in executing the process and orders of a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter when the process is fair on its face.” Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 238
Mahoney & Hagberg v. Newgard 712 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Mahoney & Hagberg v. Newgard 712 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 233-34
Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 232 , (quotation omitted).
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Fuller 621 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2001
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Fuller 621 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2001
See, e.g., Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 240-241 , In re Rivers, 167 B.R.
Kellar v. VonHoltum 568 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Kellar v. VonHoltum 568 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 231
Villarreal v. Independent School District 659 505 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Villarreal v. Independent School District 659 505 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
1213, 1218 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967) (judicial immuni *75 ty is so well-established 'that the Legislature must specifically abolish the doctrine before judges will face liability under civil rights statute for them judicial acts); Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 233-34 , (judicial immunity is a fundamental principle of English and American jurisprudence).
Myers Through Myers v. Price 463 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Myers Through Myers v. Price 463 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
It extends to all classes of courts, from the highest judge of the nation to “the lowest officer who sits as a court and tries petty cases.” Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 234
L & H AIRCO, INC. v. Rapistan Corp. 446 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1989
L & H AIRCO, INC. v. Rapistan Corp. 446 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1989
See Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 240-41
Melrose Floor Co., Inc. v. Lechner 435 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Melrose Floor Co., Inc. v. Lechner 435 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
866 (1890); Hoppe v. Kapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 241 , -92 (1947).
Eustis v. David Agency, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Eustis v. David Agency, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 241 , -92 (1947) (zealous advocate must not be deprived of independence in fearlessly presenting a debatable legal cause).
In Re Petition Regarding Assignment of Judges in the Ninth Judicial District 416 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1987
In Re Petition Regarding Assignment of Judges in the Ninth Judicial District 416 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1987
1099 , 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224 , ) and is an invitation to costly litigation.
Zimmerman v. Lasky 374 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Zimmerman v. Lasky 374 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 235
Brown v. Dayton Hudson Corp. 314 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1981
Brown v. Dayton Hudson Corp. 314 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1981
In Hoppe v. Kiapperich, 224 Minn. 224 , the court held that an attorney, as an officer of the court, “enjoys immunity from liability to a third person insofar as he does not materially depart from his character as a quasi-judicial officer charged with responsibility for the administration of justice.” Id.
Sonsteby v. Hagen 289 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1980
Sonsteby v. Hagen 289 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1980
Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224 , and Pow-Bel Const. Corp. v. Gondek, 291 Minn. 386
Bigelow v. Galway 281 N.W.2d 835 Minn. 1979
Bigelow v. Galway 281 N.W.2d 835 Minn. 1979
Pow-Bel Construction Corp. v. Gondek, 291 Minn. 386, 389 , Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 231
Kronzer v. First Nat. Bank of Minneapolis 235 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1975
Kronzer v. First Nat. Bank of Minneapolis 235 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1975
See, McDonald v. Stewart, 289 Minn. 35 , Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224 , Farmer v. Crosby, 43 Minn. 459
Peterson v. Knutson 233 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 1975
Peterson v. Knutson 233 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 1975
720 (S.D.Ala.1965); Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224 , Payne v. Lee, supra ; Linder v. Foster, 209 Minn. 43 , 295 N.W.
Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Properties, Inc. 203 N.W.2d 835 Minn. 1973
Kittler & Hedelson v. Sheehan Properties, Inc. 203 N.W.2d 835 Minn. 1973
In Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 231 , we stated: “* * * The essential elements of an action for abuse of process are only two, namely, (a) the existence of an ulterior *239 purpose, and (b) the act of using the process to accomplish a result not within the scope of the proceeding in which it was issued, whether such res
Pow-Bel Construction Corporation v. Gondek 192 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1971
Pow-Bel Construction Corporation v. Gondek 192 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1971
“* * * The essential elements of an action for abuse of process are only two, namely, (a) the existence of an ulterior purpose, and (b) the act of using the process to accomplish a result not within the scope of the proceeding in which it was issued, whether such result might otherwise be lawfully obtained or not.” Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 231
Morgan v. McLaughlin 188 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 1971