Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rico v. State, 472 N.W.2d 100.

152 citing documents.

Maxwell Harvey, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Minor Doe 601, a minor, by and through his mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 601, Appellants, vs. … Minn. 2025
Minor Doe 601, a minor, by and through his mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 601, Appellants, vs. … Minn. 2025
only as a means to focus on the central inquiry: whether the challenged government conduct involves a balancing of policy considerations.”
Shane Feldhaus v. City of Minnetonka Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Shane Feldhaus v. City of Minnetonka Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Although the exercise of discretion is relevant to both official and statutory immunity, different types of discretion are at issue, and “discretion has a broader meaning in the context of official immunity.”
Nicholas W. Sterry, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In doing so, the legislature “waived its governmental tort immunity by creating a general rule of liability.”
Troy K. Scheffler, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In this context, “[m]alice means nothing more than the intentional doing of a wrongful act without legal justification or excuse, or, otherwise stated, the willful violation of a known right.” (quotation omitted).
William Jepsen, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Eric Parker Dean, Minn. 2021
Aaron Reimringer, Minn. 2021
(stating that a person engages in bad faith if he or she engages in “wrongful conduct done without legal justification or excuse”); Rico v. State , (stating that bad faith is “willful violation of a known right”); see also Minnwest Bank Cent.
Zane Vanschaick, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
C. Malice Malice is “the intentional doing of a wrongful act without legal justification or excuse, or, otherwise stated, t he willful violation of a known right.” Rico v. State
Alyssa M. Sweesy, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The exception to immunity for malicious acts allows liability “only when an official intentionally commits an act that he o r she then has reason to believe is prohibited.” d 100, 107 (Minn. 1991).
Melissa Casanova, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The purpose of official immunity is to “insure that the threat of potential liability does not unduly inhibit the exercise of discretion required of public officers in the discharge of their 14 duties.” (quotation omitted).
Brian John Blawat, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
William A. McClendon, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Rico v. State , (holding that “a state and its officers acting in their official capacity may not be sued under section 1983”), aff’d
David Berger, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Malice means nothing more th an the intentional doing of a wrongful act without legal justification or excuse, or, otherwise stated , the willful violation of a known right.” (quotation omitted).
Wade Sotona and Kristine Sotona, as co-trustees for the next-of-kin of Brody Sotona, decedent, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(quotation omitted); (“In the official immunity context, wilful and malicious are synonymous.
Jodi L. Toedter, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Susan Ann Gray v. Winona County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jodi L. Toedter, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Susan Ann Gray v. Winona County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Malice means nothing more than the intentional doing of a wrongful act without legal justification or excuse, or, otherwise stated, the willful violation of a known right.” 8 (citations and quotations omitted).
Joan Nichols, Respondnet v. State of Minnesota, Office of the Secretary of State Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joan Nichols, Respondnet v. State of Minnesota, Office of the Secretary of State Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 100, 106-07 (Minn. 1991).
Nathan Kariniemi v. City of Rockford 882 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 2016
Nathan Kariniemi v. City of Rockford 882 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 2016
because section 1983 qualified immunity and common law official immunity further the same purpose.”
Gholamreza Kian, Trustee for the Next of Kin of Sean Kian, Decedent v. City of Minnetonka Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Gholamreza Kian, Trustee for the Next of Kin of Sean Kian, Decedent v. City of Minnetonka Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michelle Kirchner v. Patricia Jernell, Turpen Realty Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michelle Kirchner v. Patricia Jernell, Turpen Realty Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski 842 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 2014
Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski 842 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 2014
It is “the intentional doing of a wrongful act without legal justification or excuse, or, otherwise stated, the willful violation of a known right.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Nichols v. State, Office of the Secretary 842 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Nichols v. State, Office of the Secretary 842 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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
The Minnesota Supreme Court has defined malice in the context of statutory immunity as “nothing more than the intentional doing of a wrongful act without legal justification or excuse, or, otherwise stated, the willful violation of a known right.”
Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista 713 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Schroeder v. St. Louis County 708 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2006
Schroeder v. St. Louis County 708 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2006
The court found that Ario’s actions were not willful or malicious because there was no “intentional violation of a known right required for a finding of malice.” To support its finding, (stating that the willful or ma- *506 lieious wrong exception to official immunity applies only when the person seeking official immunity committed an act that he has reason to believe is prohibited).
Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department 700 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department 700 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Malice is “the intentional doing of a wrongful act without legal justification” or the “willful violation of a known right.”
Meier v. City of Columbia Heights 686 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Meier v. City of Columbia Heights 686 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Fedke v. City of Chaska 685 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Fedke v. City of Chaska 685 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Independent School District 11 678 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 2004
Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Independent School District 11 678 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 2004
Bailey v. City of St. Paul 678 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Bailey v. City of St. Paul 678 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
A ministerial act is “absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.”
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