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.

  • Johnson v. Northside Residents Redevelopment Council 467 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , (pre-Tort Claims Act case).
  • Kipp v. Saetre 454 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Kipp v. Saetre 454 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    HE OFFICIAL IMMUNITY OF APPELLANTS TO THE COMMON LAW CLAIMS 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 , ).
  • Johnson v. Morris 453 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 1990
  • Johnson v. Morris 453 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 1990
    See also Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , Johnson v. Steele County, 240 Minn. 154 , 164, 60 *-40 (1953).
  • Reuter v. City of New Hope 449 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Reuter v. City of New Hope 449 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    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 willful or malicious wrong.” Elwood, d at 677 (quoting Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , ).
  • Johnson v. Morris 445 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Johnson v. Morris 445 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    Minnesota’s 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 [the official] is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong.” Elwood, d at 677 (quoting Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , ).
  • 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
    State v. Susla, 311 Minn. 166, 175
  • Johnston v. Michael Shea and Associates 425 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Johnston v. Michael Shea and Associates 425 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    “[C]ourts * * * are not an appropriate forum to review and second-guess the acts of government which involve ‘the exercise of judgment or discretion.’ ” (quoting Sulsa v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , ).
  • Elwood v. County of Rice 423 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1988
  • Elwood v. County of Rice 423 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1988
    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.” Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , see also Johnson v. Steele County, 240 Minn. 154 , 164, , 39 (1953).
  • 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
    See also Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166
  • Midway Manor Convalescent & Nursing Home, Inc. v. Adcock 386 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Midway Manor Convalescent & Nursing Home, Inc. v. Adcock 386 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    This exemption from tort liability recognizes that the courts, through the vehicle of a negligence action, are not an appropriate forum to review and second-guess the acts of government which involve “the exercise of judgment or discretion.” Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175
  • Cairl v. State 323 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1982
  • Cairl v. State 323 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1982
    This exemption from tort liability recognizes that the courts, through the vehicle of a negligence action, are not an appropriate forum to review and second-guess the acts ox government which involve “the exercise of judgment or discretion.” Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175
  • Finch v. Wemlinger 310 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 1981
  • Finch v. Wemlinger 310 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 1981
    “A public official charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of his judgment of 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
  • Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. City of Minneapolis 296 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 1980
  • Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. City of Minneapolis 296 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 1980
    1 Since the claims against the state in the present actions arose before August 1, 1976, common law immunity applies unless an exception to such immunity is established; In Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166 , we considered one exception to the state common law tort immunity with regard to those tort actions arising before August 1, 1976.
  • 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
    As we observed in Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , “It is settled law in Minnesota 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.” We have described a ministerial duty
  • Stein v. Regents of the University of Minnesota 282 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1979
  • Stein v. Regents of the University of Minnesota 282 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1979
    Cf., Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166 , (holding that sovereign immunity of State of Minnesota prior to August 1,1976, did not extend to torts committed by the State in its proprietary capacity).
  • Harrington v. County of Ramsey 279 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1979
  • Harrington v. County of Ramsey 279 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1979
    See, Susia v. State, 311 Minn. 166
  • Papenhausen v. Schoen 268 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1978
  • Papenhausen v. Schoen 268 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1978
    In Susla v. State, Minn., however, we found it appropriate to adopt the same standard for determining the state’s tort liability, stating: “We can conceive of no justification for applying the governmental-proprietary distinction to the activities of local governmental units in tort cases but not to the activities of the state, especia
  • Miller v. Chou 257 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1977
  • Miller v. Chou 257 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1977
    In Susla v. State, Minn., this court held that sovereign immunity does not apply to torts arising from proprietary activities engaged in by the state.