Cited by

See Immunity, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (defining immunity as “[a]n exemption from a duty, liability, service of process, or possibility of prosecution” which is “often granted to public officials and government units,” and providing examples of immunity derived from the Constitution, statute, and common law); see also, (“The traditional basis for immunity is that though the defendant might be a wrongdoer, social 17 values of great importance required that the defendant escape liabi

The party arguing for immunity “bears the burden of proving [it] fits within the scope of the immunity.”

Immunities are based on the “special status of a defendant” and the principle that “though the defendant might be a wrongdoer, social values of great importance required that the defendant escape liability.” (quotation omitted).

See, d 328, 333 (Minn. 1997) (stating that when reviewing “mixed questions of law and fact” appellate courts “correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the trial court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard”); O’Donnell v. O’Donnell

“[A] defendant relying upon an immunity bears the burden of proving [they fit] within the scope of the immunity.”

d 328, 333 (Minn. 1997).

Immunities are based on the “special status of a defendant” and the principle that “though the defendant might be a wrongdoer, social values of great importance required that the defendant escape liability.” (quotation omitted).

When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, this court will correct “erroneous applications of law, but accord the [district] court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such 8 conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.”

Keane also argues that whether absolute privilege is “conclusively established” on the face of his complaint is a new issue that respondents did not argue in the district court.

However, which noted that a nonprofit board derives its authority from the state via statute or from the corporation via its coiporate bylaws.

court’s decision to dismiss the motion for an abuse of discretion”); (citing Maxfield for the idea that "[b]ecause the district court's determination of what is in the conservatee's best interests is an ultimate issue deduced from other facts in the record, we review that determination for an abuse of discretion”); (noting, when reviewing the applicability of immunity, that "the trial court’s determination necessarily will include mixed questions of law and fact” and citing Maxfield for the idea

(setting forth the general rule that the burden to establish the factual basis for immunity rests with the person invoking immunity).

“When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, ‘we will correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the [district] court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.’ ” Langford Tool & Drill Co. v. Phenix Biocomposites, LLC, ().