Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Papenhausen v. Schoen, 268 N.W.2d 565.

47 citing documents.

Brett Cournoyer, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Benchmark Investments, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Sharon Falknor, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See, (holding medical chief’s evaluations based on his personal examination of circumstances was an “indisputably discretionary activity”).
Robert R. Schroeder Construction, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation v. W. ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Robert R. Schroeder Construction, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation v. W. ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Eric Aaron, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 565, 571 (Minn. 1978).
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2008
WDSI, INC. v. County of Steele 672 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
WDSI, INC. v. County of Steele 672 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
While “governmental function” is not defined in the MGDPA, Minnesota courts, in the context of tort liability, have held that the test for a governmental function is “whether the act is for the common good of all without the element of special corporate benefit or pecuniary profit.” See, -70 (Minn.1978) (holding *621 operation of state hospital governmental function); Heitman v. Lake City, 225 Minn. 117, 120 , (holding operation of boat harbor not governmental function).
Norton v. County of Le Sueur 565 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Norton v. County of Le Sueur 565 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
46^47 (Minn.1996); -24 (Minn.1982) (decision to release dangerous youth protected because decision implicated various policy considerations); -72 (Minn.1978) (decision by members of parole board to medically parole mentally ill prisoner, who then raped a woman, was protected because it required “discretionary judgment”).
Johnson v. State 553 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1996
Johnson v. State 553 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1996
Oslin v. State 543 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Oslin v. State 543 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Johnson v. State 536 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Johnson v. State 536 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
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
It is sometimes difficult to categorize an act as discretionary or ministerial, see Larson, d at 120 ; however, the distinction serves the policy behind the official immunity doctrine.
Koelln v. Nexus Residential Treatment Facility 494 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Koelln v. Nexus Residential Treatment Facility 494 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
the state was held immune from suit for a decision to grant a “medical parole” of a mentally ill rapist from a prison to an open state hospital, where he escaped and raped a woman.
Rap v. Bjp 428 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
R.A.P. v. B.J.P. 428 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
R.A.P. v. B.J.P. 428 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Rap v. Bjp 428 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
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 distinction between “discretionary” and “ministerial” duties has been subject to “enigmatic application and occasional breakdown.”
Holmquist v. State 409 N.W.2d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Holmquist v. State 409 N.W.2d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
* * * [T]he exclusion has been ‘subject to enigmatic application and occasional breakdown’.” Ostendorf at 837 ().
Bush v. City of Lakefield 399 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bush v. City of Lakefield 399 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Diedrich v. State 393 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Diedrich v. State 393 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
the plaintiff was assaulted and raped by an escapee from the Anoka State Hospital.
Seafirst Commercial Corp. v. Speakman 384 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Seafirst Commercial Corp. v. Speakman 384 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ostendorf v. Kenyon 347 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Ostendorf v. Kenyon 347 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Cairl v. State 323 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1982
Cairl v. State 323 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1982
Finch v. Wemlinger 310 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 1981
Finch v. Wemlinger 310 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 1981
In Minnesota, the plaintiff must prove as an element of his case that the defendants acted maliciously and willfully.
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
Classifying a person’s acts as “discretionary” or “ministerial” is often difficult and, such a distinction has been subject to enigmatic application and occasional breakdown.
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
Recently, which involved possible liability for pre-Au-gust 1, 1976, conduct, we were asked to determine whether operation of a state mental hospital was a proprietary or a governmental function.
Harrington v. County of Ramsey 279 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1979
Harrington v. County of Ramsey 279 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1979