Cited by

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

152 citing documents.

Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Independent School District 11 655 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Independent School District 11 655 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
As mentioned, statutory immunity preserves the separation of powers, while official immunity primarily is “intended 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 duties.” (quotation omitted).
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
Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 598 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1999
Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 598 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1999
we held that 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.” Id.
Fisher v. County of Rock 596 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1999
Fisher v. County of Rock 596 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1999
The purpose of statutory immunity is “to preserve the separation of powers by insulating executive and legislative policy decisions from judicial review through tort actions.”
Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 581 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 581 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Under the doctrine, “individual governmental actors * * * remain immune only if they do not act maliciously or intentionally.” Janklow, d at 716 ; (conduct malicious or willful only if official intentionally commits act official “then has reason to believe is prohibited”).
Kari v. City of Maplewood 582 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1998
Kari v. City of Maplewood 582 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1998
In the immunity context malice means “the intentional doing of a wrongful act without legal justification or excuse, or, otherwise stated, the willful violation of a known right.” (quoting Carnes v. St.
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
Official immunity protects “a public official charged by law with duties that call for the exercise of judgment or discretion unless the official is guilty of a wilful or malicious wrong.” Watson, d at 414 (-07 (Minn.1991)).
S.W. v. Spring Lake Park School District No. 16 580 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1998
S.W. v. Spring Lake Park School District No. 16 580 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1998
ects public officials acting in their official capacity from suit, whereas vicarious official immunity protects the governmental entity from suit when " ‘the threat of potential liability [would] unduly inhibit the exercise of discretion required of public officials in 'the discharge of their duties.’ ” ().
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).
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
Official immunity is “intended 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 duties.” (quoting Holmquist, d at 233 n. 1).
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
See, (noting that genuine issues of material fact preclude operation of official immunity to bar suit); -81 (Minn.App.1989) (holding that genuine issues of material fact on whether decisions were operational or planning in nature precluded summary judgment based on st
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
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
In the context of official immunity, 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.’ ” (citations omitted).
Rehn v. Fischley 557 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1997
Rehn v. Fischley 557 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1997
2727, 2736-39 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (regarding federal qualified immunity); -05 (Minn.1991) (regarding statutory and official immunities); Elwood, d at 676-79 (regarding official and statutory immunities).
Zank v. Larson 552 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1996
Zank v. Larson 552 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1996
ticular government activity is protected by statutory immunity, we have interpreted the discretionary function exception narrowly and have focused on its underlying purpose'— to preserve the separation of powers by preventing courts from passing judgment “on policy decisions entrusted to coordinate branches of government.”
Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 553 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 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
Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 553 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1996
The common law doctrine of official immunity “protects from personal liability a public official charged by law with duties that call for the exercise of judgment or discretion unless the official is guilty of a wilful or malicious wrong.” 3 -07 (Minn.1991)
Carter v. Peace Officers Standards & Training Board 547 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Carter v. Peace Officers Standards & Training Board 547 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
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
16, 1993) (-07 (Minn.1991)).
Killen v. Independent School District No. 706 547 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Killen v. Independent School District No. 706 547 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Oslin v. State 543 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Oslin v. State 543 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 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
Johnson v. State 536 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Johnson v. State 536 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1995

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by