Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cairl v. State, 323 N.W.2d 20.

134 citing documents.

Holmquist v. State 409 N.W.2d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Engle v. Hennepin County 412 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Engle v. Hennepin County 412 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
as to mandate application of the holding of that case.
Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth 411 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth 411 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Thus, discretionary immunity applies when a decision “involves the balancing of complex and competing factors comprising a ‘discretionary choice between alternatives.’ ” -4 (Minn.1982) (quoting Larson, d at 120 ).
Seaton v. County of Scott 404 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Seaton v. County of Scott 404 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nelson v. House 402 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nelson v. House 402 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-27 (Minn.1982) (construing Minn.Stat.
Diedrich v. State 393 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Diedrich v. State 393 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
are not liable for any loss caused by “the performance or failure to perform a discretionary duty, whether or not the discretion is abused.” The issue, whether allegedly negligent governmental acts by a state hospital constitute an exercise of discretion, is fraught with difficulty because the term ‘discretion’ has been “subject to enigmatic application and occasional breakdown.” (citing Larson v. Independent School District # 314, Braham, ).
Patzwald v. Krey 390 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Patzwald v. Krey 390 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Johnson v. County of Nicollet 387 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gonzales v. Hollins 386 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gonzales v. Hollins 386 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Johnson v. County of Nicollet 387 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
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
Bird v. State, Department of Public Safety 375 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Bird v. State, Department of Public Safety 375 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Larson v. Larson 373 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 1985
Larson v. Larson 373 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 1985
(“It is apparent, then, that if a duty to warn exists, it does so only when specific threats are made * * *.”) Correla-tively, of what would a warning consist?
Lyons v. State Ex Rel. Humphrey Ex Rel. Pung 366 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lyons v. State Ex Rel. Humphrey Ex Rel. Pung 366 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lundgren v. Fultz 354 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 1984
Lundgren v. Fultz 354 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 1984
for example, this court refused to impose a duty to warn potential victims of a patient’s dangerous propensities unless the patient has made specific threats against identifiable persons.
Wilson v. Ramacher 352 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
Wilson v. Ramacher 352 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
we discussed the public policy considerations behind the grant of discretionary immunity.
Ostendorf v. Kenyon 347 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Ostendorf v. Kenyon 347 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The purpose of the discretionary acts exclusion is 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.” see also, Restatement (Second) Torts § 895D comment f (1979).
Green-Glo Turf Farms, Inc. v. State 347 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1984
County of Hennepin v. Levine 345 N.W.2d 217 Minn. 1984
County of Hennepin v. Levine 345 N.W.2d 217 Minn. 1984
7 (1982); (both Cairl and Johnson were decided under the previous civil commitment act, but both illustrate our view of treatment by the least restrictive means).