Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View, 518 N.W.2d 567.

92 citing documents.

Arianna Anderson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Amy Sweasy Tamburino, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In Burns v. State, we held that when “an individual official is responsible for the acts” alleged to violate the whistleblower act, “official immunity may be available to protect the government from liability for that conduct.” (holding that official immunity may be available to preclude claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act).
William Jepsen, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Eric Parker Dean, Minn. 2021
and our analysis there confirms the result here.
Melissa Casanova, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State by Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View
William Jepsen, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Eric Parker Dean, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-71 (Minn. 1994) (holding that the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) does not abrogate co mmon-law official immunity because the doctrine is consistent with the terms of the MHRA and its remedial purpose).
State v. Mikulak 903 N.W.2d 600 Minn. 2017
Steven Igou v. Garden City Township Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Steven Igou v. Garden City Township Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michelle Kirchner v. Patricia Jernell, Turpen Realty Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michelle Kirchner v. Patricia Jernell, Turpen Realty Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The malice exception “contemplates an objective inquiry into the legal reasonableness of an official’s actions.”
J.E.B. v. Danks 785 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 2010
Explained J.E.B. v. Danks 785 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 2010
Minneapolis Police Department v. Kelly 776 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
“It is well-established that an investigatory stop may be based in part on a description of a suspect’s race, but race or color alone is not a sufficient basis for making an investigatory stop.” (upholding the stop of a vehicle that was being driven in a direction away from the scene of a recent armed robbery and *552 whose occupant’s race and clothing matched the suspect’s description).
In Re Peer Review Action 749 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re Peer Review Action 749 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
572 & n. 8 (Minn.1994).
City of Minneapolis v. Ames & Fischer Co. II, LLP 724 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
City of Minneapolis v. Ames & Fischer Co. II, LLP 724 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Thompson v. City of Minneapolis 707 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 2006
Thompson v. City of Minneapolis 707 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 2006
(remanding the determination of official immunity to a fact finder).
Vlahos v. R&I Construction of Bloomington, Inc. 676 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2004
Vlahos v. R&I Construction of Bloomington, Inc. 676 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2004
State by Beaulieu, v. City of Mounds View
Podruch v. State, Department of Public Safety 674 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Podruch v. State, Department of Public Safety 674 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Olmanson v. Le Sueur County 673 N.W.2d 506 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Olmanson v. Le Sueur County 673 N.W.2d 506 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Dokman v. County of Hennepin 637 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Dokman v. County of Hennepin 637 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
The question of malice is an “objective inquiry into the legal reasonableness of an official’s actions.”
State v. Victorsen 627 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Victorsen 627 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Britton, d at 89 (-70 (Minn.1994)).
Balasuriya v. Bemel 617 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Balasuriya v. Bemel 617 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Altenburg v. Board of Supervisors 615 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Altenburg v. Board of Supervisors 615 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Britton 604 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2000
State v. Britton 604 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2000
Oreck v. Harvey Homes, Inc. 602 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Oreck v. Harvey Homes, Inc. 602 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In making our determination, we “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 598 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1999
Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 598 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1999
Ruddy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 596 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Ruddy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 596 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In making its determinations, “the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
Bisbee v. City of Fairmont 593 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Bisbee v. City of Fairmont 593 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In making its determination, “the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Oakdale 588 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Oakdale 588 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In making its determinations, “the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
AVR, INC. v. City of St. Louis Park 585 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
AVR, INC. v. City of St. Louis Park 585 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In making its determinations, “the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 581 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1998