Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206.

37 citing documents.

Brianne Goad, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
at 479-80 (citing Watson, d at 413; n.6 (Minn. 1988); ).
Minor Doe 601, a minor, by and through his mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 601, Appellants, vs. … Minn. 2025
Minor Doe 601, a minor, by and through his mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 601, Appellants, vs. … Minn. 2025
(stating that transit commission’s “decisions with regard to the training of its drivers constitute planning level conduct, protected by statutory immunity” because “in providing training for its bus drivers, the MTC must balance the needs of the drivers, the MTC, and its passengers, and must take into account the resources available to pay for such training”); (“We think it is enough to say that here, in the light of rumored impending riots, the city had the right to decide how most effectively
Barbara Kuntz v. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Barbara Kuntz v. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 284 Minn. 266, 271, (concluding that decisions regarding how to most effectively deploy police officers to cope with impending riot were entitled to 6 statutory immunity); see also Watson, d at 413 (MTC’s decision regarding how to deploy security
Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 553 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1996
Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 553 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1996
Planning level conduct includes: decisions regarding deployment of police forces, Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 284 Minn. 266 , *413 271, a decision to release a mentally retarded youth from a state institution for a holiday home visit, and a decision to place certain warning signs only on county roads and recognized rights-of-way, Steinke, d at 176 .
Terwilliger v. Hennepin County 542 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Terwilliger v. Hennepin County 542 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
For example, in Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 284 Minn. 266 , the court had determined that deployment of police to control civil unrest was a policy decision protected by the discretionary function exception.
Soucek v. Banham 503 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Soucek v. Banham 503 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See also Hansen v. City of Saint Paul, 298 Minn. 205 , (where city officials had knowledge that two dangerous dogs were loose, the decision of the dogcatchers *162 not to capture the dogs until after lunch was at an operational level and therefore, was not protected conduct); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 284 Minn. 266 , (deployment of police forces to control civil unrest was an executive policy decision and therefore, was protected as a discretionary function).
Dahlheimer v. City of Dayton 441 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Dahlheimer v. City of Dayton 441 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See also Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 284 Minn. 266 , (in view of impending riots, the discretionary function exception protected city’s decision about deployment of fire and police services).
Wornson v. Chrysler Corp. 436 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Wornson v. Chrysler Corp. 436 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 284 Minn. 266, 272 , (deployment of police forces during civil unrest was an executive policy decision and protected).
Frank's Livestock & Poultry Farm, Inc. v. City of Wells 431 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Frank's Livestock & Poultry Farm, Inc. v. City of Wells 431 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 284 Minn. 266
Snyder v. City of Minneapolis 422 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Snyder v. City of Minneapolis 422 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 284 Minn. 266, 269 , (quoting Romsdahl v. Town of Long Lake, 175 Minn. 34, 36 , 220 N.W.
Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth 422 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 1988
Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth 422 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 1988
For example, in Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 284 Minn. 266 , this court determined that deployment of police forces to control civil unrest was an executive policy decision protected as a discretionary function.
Andrade v. Ellefson 391 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1986
Andrade v. Ellefson 391 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1986
See Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 284 Minn. 266
Robinson v. Hollatz 374 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Robinson v. Hollatz 374 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 284 Minn. 266 , the supreme court concluded the city’s choice of how to deploy police and firefighting resources in the face of rumored impending riots fell within the discretionary function.
Larson Ex Rel. Larson v. Independent School District No. 314, Braham 289 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 1979
Larson Ex Rel. Larson v. Independent School District No. 314, Braham 289 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 1979
Cf., Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 284 Minn. 266
Marlow v. City of Columbia Heights 284 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1979
Marlow v. City of Columbia Heights 284 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1979
6, 3 which exempts from municipal tort liability “[a]ny claim based upon the performance or failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion is abused.” In Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 284 Minn. 266 , this court held that the city’s choice of how to deploy police and firefighting resources in the face of rumored impending riots fell within the “discretionary function” exception of § 466.03, subd.
Young v. Wlazik 262 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 1977
Young v. Wlazik 262 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 1977
6; Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 284 Minn. 266
City of St. Paul v. Myles 218 N.W.2d 697 Minn. 1974
City of St. Paul v. Myles 218 N.W.2d 697 Minn. 1974
Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 284 Minn. 266
Hansen v. City of Saint Paul 214 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1974
Hansen v. City of Saint Paul 214 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1974
Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 284 Minn. 266
State v. Sharich 209 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1973
State v. Sharich 209 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1973
2 The defendant’s main brief appears to allude also to prosecutorial discrimination; however, defendant’s rebuttal brief (p. 7) makes clear her claim: “The point appellant makes is not that the discretion of prosecutors is abused, but that the discretion is exercised at the police level entirely, by non-lawyers.” 3 In Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 284 Minn. 266 , a civil, rather than a criminal, case, we held that, deployment of police and fire-fighting resources in the face of threatened and a