Cited by

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

181 citing documents.

McGovern v. City of Minneapolis 480 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
In determining whether discretionary function immunity applies, the critical inquiry is “whether the challenged governmental conduct involved a balancing of policy objectives.”
Sayers Ex Rel. Sayers v. Beltrami County 472 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Sayers Ex Rel. Sayers v. Beltrami County 472 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Rico v. State 472 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1991
Rico v. State 472 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1991
(citing W. Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 131, at 1039 (5th ed.1984); 5 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 27.11, at 60-62 (2d ed.1984)).
Abo El Ela v. State 468 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Abo El Ela v. State 468 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
the performance or failure to perform a discretionary duty, whether or not the discretion is abused.” Discretionary immunity is based on the doctrine of separation of powers; on the “notion 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.”
Pletan v. Gaines 460 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Pletan v. Gaines 460 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Schaeffer v. State 444 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Schaeffer v. State 444 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Gorecki v. County of Hennepin, Dept. of Public Works 443 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Gorecki v. County of Hennepin, Dept. of Public Works 443 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Where employees follow the policy decision adopted by the governmental entity, “a challenge to their conduct is merely a challenge to the policy.”
Hennes v. Patterson 443 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hennes v. Patterson 443 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
We believe the issue of discretionary immunity can be resolved under two recent supreme court cases
Dahlheimer v. City of Dayton 441 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Dahlheimer v. City of Dayton 441 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Snyder v. City of Minneapolis 441 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1989
Snyder v. City of Minneapolis 441 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1989
Recently, we again said the judiciary should not, through tort actions, engage in second guessing policymaking activities that are legislative or executive in nature.
Wornson v. Chrysler Corp. 436 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Wornson v. Chrysler Corp. 436 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Holmquist v. State 425 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 1988
Holmquist v. State 425 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 1988
Johnston v. Michael Shea and Associates 425 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Abbett v. County of St. Louis 424 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Abbett v. County of St. Louis 424 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
held that placement of a speed zone sign was not a discretionary, protected function.
Johnston v. Michael Shea and Associates 425 N.W.2d 263 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
Chabot v. City of Sauk Rapids 422 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1988
Chabot v. City of Sauk Rapids 422 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1988
we made clear that certain government conduct is protected under the discretionary function exception not simply be *711 cause it is identified as a planning decision.