Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth, 422 N.W.2d 713.

181 citing documents.

Janklow v. Minnesota Board of Examiners for Nursing Home Administrators 552 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1996
Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 553 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1996
Statutory immunity exists to prevent the courts from conducting an after-the-fact review which second-guesses “certain policy-making activities that are legislative or executive in nature.”
Johnson v. State 553 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1996
Statutory immunity protects “policy-making activities that are legislative or executive in nature.”
Carter v. Peace Officers Standards & Training Board 547 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Carter v. Peace Officers Standards & Training Board 547 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Killen v. Independent School District No. 706 547 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Killen v. Independent School District No. 706 547 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Terwilliger v. Hennepin County 542 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Terwilliger v. Hennepin County 542 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Six years later, the supreme court again attempted to provide some clear guidelines on the issue.
Vrieze v. New Century Homes, Inc. 542 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Vrieze v. New Century Homes, Inc. 542 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Watson ex rel. Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 540 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Watson ex rel. Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 540 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Johnson v. State 536 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Johnson v. State 536 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Gutbrod v. County of Hennepin 529 N.W.2d 720 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Gutbrod v. County of Hennepin 529 N.W.2d 720 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Steinke v. City of Andover 525 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 1994
Steinke v. City of Andover 525 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 1994
Waste Recovery Cooperative v. County of Hennepin 517 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1994
Waste Recovery Cooperative v. County of Hennepin 517 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1994
requires reversing the decision of the court of appeals with regard to the claim of discretionary function immunity.
Leonzal v. Grogan 516 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Leonzal v. Grogan 516 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Olson v. Ramsey County 509 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1993
Olson v. Ramsey County 509 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1993
6 (1992), which precludes municipal tort liability for claims “based upon the performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the *371 discretion is abused.”
Doyle v. City of Roseville 507 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Doyle v. City of Roseville 507 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rasivong v. Lakewood Community College 504 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rasivong v. Lakewood Community College 504 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
The discretionary acts exception is intended “to preserve the separation of powers by insulating executive and legislative policy decisions from judicial review through tort actions.” ().
Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin 504 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin 504 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
A court must narrowly construe the exceptions, Johnston, d at 267 , and should always consider that the exception seeks to protect policy-based decisions and “prevent the impairment of effective government,”
Soucek v. Banham 503 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Soucek v. Banham 503 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Discretionary function immunity “seeks to protect policy-based decisions and prevent the impairment of effective government.”
Maras v. City of Brainerd 502 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Maras v. City of Brainerd 502 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Olson v. Ramsey County 497 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Olson v. Ramsey County 497 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
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
Background a. Official Immunity The policy behind this immunity is to protect “public officials from the fear of personal liability that might deter independent action and impair effective performance of their duties.” , 718 n. 4 (Minn.1988).
Sota Foods, Inc. v. Larson-Peterson & Associates, Inc. 497 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Sota Foods, Inc. v. Larson-Peterson & Associates, Inc. 497 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
After identifying the precise governmental conduct that is being challenged, “[t]he critical inquiry * * * is whether the challenged governmental conduct involved a balancing of policy objectives.”
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 basis for the discretionary function exception is that “the judicial branch of government should not, through the medium of tort actions, second-guess certain policy-making activities that are legislative or executive in nature.”
McEwen v. Burlington Northern Railroad 494 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
McEwen v. Burlington Northern Railroad 494 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Carradine v. State 494 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Carradine v. State 494 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(“each case must be judged in a fashion which focuses on whether the legislature intended to immunize the particular government activity”).
Pletan v. Gaines 481 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Pletan v. Gaines 481 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
McGovern v. City of Minneapolis 480 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 1992