Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sletten v. Ramsey County, 675 N.W.2d 291.

62 citing documents.

Ann P. Shantz v. City of Waconia Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Joseph Ming Klimmek v. Elizabeth Lynn Klimmek Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Joseph Ming Klimmek v. Elizabeth Lynn Klimmek Minn. Ct. App. 2026
shall be asserted in the responsive pleading.” A party “waives an affirmative defense if it is not included in a responsive pleading.”
Maxwell Harvey v. Aubrey Dudley, et al., Josh Barlage, et al., Referee Brad Davick Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Kimberly Lowry, on behalf of herself and the Proposed Rule 23 Classes, et al. (A24-0849) (A24-1910) v. City … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Don Magnuson v. Minnesota Therapeutic Recreation Association, et al., John Doe, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(stating that “ the application of an immunity 10 typically is a matter of law that is best resolved before the parties engage in lengthy discovery”).
Nicholas C Vezzetti v. The City of Minneapolis Minn. Ct. App. 2025
And “[w]hile we have generally extended official immunity vicariously to governmental entities after a government employee has been allowed official immunity, vicarious immunity is not an automatic grant.”
MFK by and through her natural parent, Kathryn Kendrick v. Walker-Hackensack-Akeley ISD #113, DOES 1-10 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
MFK by and through her natural parent, Kathryn Kendrick v. Walker-Hackensack-Akeley ISD #113, DOES 1-10 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
ROA Rochester v. City of Byron Minn. Ct. App. 2024
ROA Rochester v. City of Byron Minn. Ct. App. 2024
shall be asserted in the responsive pleading”); (“[A] party waives an affirmative defense if it is not included in a responsive pleading.”); Minn.-Iowa Telev.
Christine L. Rathbun v. Fillmore County Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Christine L. Rathbun v. Fillmore County Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Jaime Lindbom as Guardian Ad Litem for Emma Lindbom v. Becker Independent School District, #726 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Allen Borgquist 7 N.W.3d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Allen Borgquist 7 N.W.3d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, n.7 (Minn. 1995) (noting that “[m]itigating circumstances or issues” are referred to as a “defense” or an “affirmative defense”); - 300 (Minn. 2004) (explaining in a civil suit that “[w]hereas an affirmative defense protects the party from liability, immunity typically protects a party from the lawsuit itself”).
Jaime Lindbom as Guardian Ad Litem for Emma Lindbom v. Becker Independent School District, #726 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Therefore, the denial of a summary-judgment motion based on immunity is immediately appealable because the immunity is effectively lost if the case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” (citation omitted).
Sharon Falknor v. City of Minneapolis Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Brian Vitek as Trustee for the next-of-kin of Patric Vitek, deceased v. The City of Eagan, Co-Appellant, Dakota … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Alexander Aguilar v. American Indian Community Development Corporation, Hennepin County Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Kay L. Briden v. Transit Team, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Official immunit y is a common law doctrine that protects government officials from suit for discretionary actions taken by them in the course of their official duties.” Sletten v. Ramsey County
Leon Bond, III, by and through Crystal Bond, his mother and natural guardian v. Independent School District #191 … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Official immunity is a common law doctrine that protects government officials from suit for discretionary actions taken by them in the course of their official duties.” 5
William Jepsen, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Eric Parker Dean Minn. 2021
See Sletten v. Ramsey Cnty .
Cody Lee Elven v. St. Louis County Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Glacier Park Iron Ore Properties, LLC v. United States Steel Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Minn. Stat. § 561.01 “defines a nuis ance in terms of the resulting harm rather than in terms of the kind of conduct by a defendant which causes the harm.” Sletten v. Ramsey C ty.
Paul Stepnes v. Beth Trautman, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Brian John Blawat, et al., Floyd Blawat v. Ben Huener, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Sletten v. Rams ey C ounty
Laureen Dvorak, et al v. City of Madison Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Go Green Energy, LLC v. City of Orono Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Nathan Kariniemi v. City of Rockford 882 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 2016
Nathan Kariniemi v. City of Rockford 882 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 2016
William A. Statz and Kathryn L. Statz, as co-trustees for the next of kin of Friedrich Statz, Deceased … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
William A. Statz and Kathryn L. Statz, as co-trustees for the next of kin of Friedrich Statz, Deceased … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Delmer V. Fladwood, et al v. City of St. Paul Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Delmer V. Fladwood, et al v. City of St. Paul Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-91 (Minn. 2006); d 669, 673-74 (Minn. 2006); -07 (Minn. 2004); S.W.
Nathan Kariniemi, et al v. City of Rockford 863 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Nathan Kariniemi, et al v. City of Rockford 863 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
by creating an exception to liability which would essentially ‘swallow’ the rule of liability itself.” “The applicability of immunity is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.” d 291, 299 (Minn. 2004).
Michael Harlow v. State of Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al 862 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael Harlow v. State of Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al 862 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., -77 (Minn. 2002); (applying this standard to the district court’s denial of summary judgment based on immunity).
Joan M. Nichols v. State of Minnesota, Office of the Secretary of State Minn. 2015
Nichols v. State 858 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2015
Nichols v. State 858 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2015
Joan M. Nichols v. State of Minnesota, Office of the Secretary of State Minn. 2015
d 291, 299 (Minn. 2004).
Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski 842 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 2014
Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski 842 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 2014
The “immunity [is] from suit, not just from liability.”
Peterka v. Dennis 764 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2009
Peterka v. Dennis 764 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2009
JW Ex Rel. BRW v. 287 INTER. DIST. 761 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
J.W. ex rel. B.R.W. v. 287 Intermediate District 761 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
JW Ex Rel. BRW v. 287 INTER. DIST. 761 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(official immunity); , 43-44 n. 1, 45 (Minn.1996) (official and *901 statutory immunity; also referred to as "discretionary immunity").