DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Susla v. State, 247 N.W.2d 907.

85 citing documents.

  • Brian John Blawat, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
  • Mumm v. Mornson 708 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 2006
  • Mumm v. Mornson 708 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 2006
    Elwood, d at 677 (quoting Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , ).
  • 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
    As we have explained in numerous cases, the doctrine of common law official immunity provides that “a public official charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of his judgment or discretion is not personally liable to an individual for damages unless he is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong.” (quoting Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , ).
  • Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 598 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1999
  • Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 598 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1999
    See Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175
  • 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
    The official immunity doctrine ensures that “ ‘a public official charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of his judgment or discretion is not personally liable to an individual for damages unless he is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong.’ ” (quoting Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , ).
  • Burns v. State 570 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Burns v. State 570 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    Official immunity protects government officials “charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of * * * judgment or discretion * * * unless [the official] is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong.” (quoting Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , ).
  • 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
    Elwood, d at 677 (quoting Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , ).
  • 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
    See Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175
  • Johnson v. State 553 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1996
  • Janklow v. Minnesota Board of Examiners for Nursing Home Administrators 552 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1996
  • Janklow v. Minnesota Board of Examiners for Nursing Home Administrators 552 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1996
    See Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , Prosser, supra, at 989.
  • Johnson v. State 553 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1996
    The doctrine of official immunity establishes that “ ‘a public official charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of his judgment or discretion is not personally liable to an individual for damages unless he is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong.’” (quoting Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , ).
  • Carter v. Peace Officers Standards & Training Board 547 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • Carter v. Peace Officers Standards & Training Board 547 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    (quoting Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , ).
  • 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
    The official immunity doctrine provides that “a public official charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of his judgment or discretion is not personally liable to an individual for damages unless he is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong.” (quoting Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , ).
  • 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
    Official immunity 1 “[A] public official charged by law with duties which call for exercise of his judgment or discretion is not personally liable to an individual for damages unless he is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong.” (quoting Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , ).
  • Kalia v. St. Cloud State University 539 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • Kalia v. St. Cloud State University 539 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    The doctrine of official immunity provides: “[A] public official charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of his [or her] judgment or discretion is not personally liable to an individual for damages unless he is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong.” (quoting Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , ).
  • Carter v. Cole 526 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • Carter v. Cole 526 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    Under the official immunity doctrine “a public official charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of his discretion is not personally liable to an individual for damages unless he is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong.” Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175
  • Mjolsness v. Riley 524 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Mjolsness v. Riley 524 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    (bad-faith conduct is the intentional doing of a wrongful act without legal justification or excuse, or the willful violation of a known right); -79 (Minn.1988) (bad-faith conduct involves not merely erroneous judgment, but rather malicious intent); Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , (bad-faith conduct involves a willful or malicious wrong); Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250, 261 , (bad-faith conduct involves acting with malice).
  • Duellman v. Erwin 522 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Duellman v. Erwin 522 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175
  • State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View 518 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1994
  • State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View 518 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1994
    The doctrine of official immunity “provides that ‘a public official charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of his judgment or discretion is not personally liable to an individual for damages unless he is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong.’ ” (quoting Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , ).
  • Olson v. Ramsey County 509 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1993
  • Olson v. Ramsey County 509 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1993
    at 678 (quoting Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175
  • McDonough v. City of Rosemount 503 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Soucek v. Banham 503 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Soucek v. Banham 503 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    I. Official immunity The “official immunity” doctrine provides that “a public official charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of his judgment or discretion is not personally liable to an individual for damages unless he is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong.” , 677 (Minn.1988) (emphasis added) (quoting Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , ); -42 (Minn. 1990).
  • McDonough v. City of Rosemount 503 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    This doctrine provides “a public official charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of his judgment or discretion is not personally liable to an individual for damages unless he is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong.” Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175
  • State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View 498 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View 498 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    Elwood, d at 677 ; Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175
  • S.L.D. v. Kranz 498 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • S.L.D. v. Kranz 498 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    Thus, where public officials are “charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of [their] judgment or discretion [they are] not personally liable to an individual for damages unless [they are] guilty of a willful or malicious wrong.” Elwood, d at 677 (quoting Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , ).
  • Pletan v. Gaines 494 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1992
  • Pletan v. Gaines 494 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1992
    The common law provides that “a public official charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of his judgment or discretion is not personally liable to an individual for damages unless he is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong.” quoting Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175
  • Pletan v. Gaines 481 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Pletan v. Gaines 481 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    I. Minnesota’s official immunity doctrine provides that “a public official charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of [the official’s] judgment or discretion is not personally liable to an individual for damages unless [the official] is guilty of willful or malicious wrong.” (quoting Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , , 912 *569 (1976)).
  • Johnson v. Northside Residents Redevelopment Council 467 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 1991