Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Steinke v. City of Andover, 525 N.W.2d 173.

79 citing documents.

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
We have interpreted the discretionary function exception narrowly — protecting only those activities which require the balancing of policy objectives, "involving social, political, or economic considerations, rather than merely professional or scientific judgments.” Zank, d at 721 ().
Gerber v. Neveaux 578 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Gerber v. Neveaux 578 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Designed to protect policy-based decisions and prevent the impairment of government, Nusbaum, d at 719 , statutory immunity “protects the government only when it can produce evidence that its conduct was of a policy-making nature involving social, political, or economic considerations, rather than merely scientific or professional judgments.”
Angell v. Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority 578 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1998
Angell v. Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority 578 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1998
Berg v. Hubbard County 578 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Berg v. Hubbard County 578 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Riedel v. Goodwin 574 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Riedel v. Goodwin 574 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
S.W. v. Spring Lake Park School District No. 16 566 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
S.W. v. Spring Lake Park School District No. 16 566 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
“[Statutory] immunity protects the government only when it can produce evidence its conduct was of a policymaking nature involving social, political, or economic considerations, rather than merely professional or scientific judgments.” (holding that discretionary acts require balancing of complex and competing factors at planning, rather than operational, stage of development).
Angell v. Hennepin County 565 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Angell v. Hennepin County 565 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
“[Statutory] immunity protects the government only when it can produce evidence its conduct was of a policy-making nature involving social, political, or economic considerations, rather than merely professional or scientific judgments.”
Martin v. Spirit Mountain Recreation Area Authority 566 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1997
Martin v. Spirit Mountain Recreation Area Authority 566 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1997
Ai Viet Thi Nguyen v. Phu Chau Nguyen 565 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Ai Viet Thi Nguyen v. Phu Chau Nguyen 565 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(applying discretionary immunity to county’s decision against volunteering to post drainage ditch warning signs at areas outside recognized right-of-ways, a decision that required considering safety issues, financial burdens, and possible legal consequences).
In Re Alexandria Accident of February 8, 1994 561 N.W.2d 543 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In Re Alexandria Accident of February 8, 1994 561 N.W.2d 543 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
The courts distinguish between “operational decisions” and “planning decisions.”
Martin v. Spirit Mountain Recreation Area Authority 556 N.W.2d 603 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Zank v. Larson 552 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1996
Zank v. Larson 552 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1996
Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 553 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1996
Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 553 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1996
Schaffer v. Spirit Mountain Recreation Area Authority 541 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Schaffer v. Spirit Mountain Recreation Area Authority 541 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Martinez v. Minnesota Zoological Gardens 526 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Martinez v. Minnesota Zoological Gardens 526 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
After oral arguments in this case, the state submitted a letter to the court of appeals, enclosing a copy of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s