Cited by

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

92 citing documents.

Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 581 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(police allegedly detained suspects for longer than necessary and lied to suspects about basis for traffic stop); (police officer allegedly pointed revolver at defendant’s head and threatened to shoot without proper basis for doing so); Soucek v. Banham
Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations 582 N.W.2d 216 Minn. 1998
Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations 582 N.W.2d 216 Minn. 1998
Canadian Connection v. New Prairie Township 581 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Canadian Connection v. New Prairie Township 581 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In making its determinations, “the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
Costilla v. State 571 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Costilla v. State 571 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Burns v. State 570 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Burns v. State 570 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(official immunity available as defense to claim based on violation of Human Rights Act); , 106 n. 3 (Minn.1991) (declining to decide if official immunity was a defense to a whistleblower claim when the cause of action arose before the statute was enacted).
Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations 563 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations 563 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
This limitation, often referred to as the “malice” exception, is defined by an “objective inquiry into the legal reasonableness of an official’s actions.”
Reese v. Brookdale Motors, Inc. 567 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Reese v. Brookdale Motors, Inc. 567 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Anderson v. Crestliner, Inc. 564 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Anderson v. Crestliner, Inc. 564 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Cummings v. Koehnen 556 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Cummings v. Koehnen 556 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Davis v. Hennepin County 559 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Davis v. Hennepin County 559 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
*122 the supreme court recognized that the defense of immunity poses a significant threat to the “essential remedial purpose” of the MHRA, which is to “eradicate discrimination.” Id.
Blue Earth County Pork Producers, Inc. v. County of Blue Earth 558 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Blue Earth County Pork Producers, Inc. v. County of Blue Earth 558 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
R.A., Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. 556 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
R.A., Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. 556 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Janklow v. Minnesota Board of Examiners for Nursing Home Administrators 552 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1996
Janklow v. Minnesota Board of Examiners for Nursing Home Administrators 552 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1996
Recently, we confronted a
Nisbet v. Hennepin County 548 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Nisbet v. Hennepin County 548 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See, (officers entitled to official immunity during execution of a felony stop); Elwood, (officer responding to domestic dispute entitled to official immunity).
State v. Paul 548 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1996
Kalia v. St. Cloud State University 539 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Kalia v. St. Cloud State University 539 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Janklow v. BD. OF EXAM. FOR NURS. HOME 536 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Janklow v. BD. OF EXAM. FOR NURS. HOME 536 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Janklow v. Minnesota Board of Examiners for Nursing Home Administrators 536 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Janklow v. Minnesota Board of Examiners for Nursing Home Administrators 536 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. City of St. Paul 533 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 1995
Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. City of St. Paul 533 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 1995
Dunham's Food & Drink, Inc. v. City of West St. Paul 526 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Dunham's Food & Drink, Inc. v. City of West St. Paul 526 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(statute should not be construed against common-law principles unless so required by express words or by necessary implication).
Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc. 526 N.W.2d 369 Minn. 1995
Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc. 526 N.W.2d 369 Minn. 1995
Duellman v. Erwin 522 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Duellman v. Erwin 522 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(police investigatory stop of armed robbery suspect); (police response to driver who refused to pull over); Elwood, d at 674 (police response to possibly armed man threatening his former wife).