Cited by

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

152 citing documents.

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
(reviewing denial of summary judgment for error in application of governmental immunity).
Carter v. Cole 526 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Carter v. Cole 526 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Mjolsness v. Riley 524 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Mjolsness v. Riley 524 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(bad-faith conduct is the intentional doing of a wrongful act without legal justification or excuse, or the willful violation of a known right); -79 (Minn.1988) (bad-faith conduct involves not merely erroneous judgment, but rather malicious intent); Susla v. S
Lommen v. City of East Grand Forks 522 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Lommen v. City of East Grand Forks 522 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Thus, North Dakota's definition of "gross negligence” seems to approach "willful,” but may be somewhat different because under Minnesota's law of official immunity, "malice"— which is synonymous with "willful”— “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.” (quoting Carnes v. St.
Duellman v. Erwin 522 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Duellman v. Erwin 522 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
528, 546 (D.Minn.1993) (emergency situation is not necessary); (termination of employee).
State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View 518 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1994
State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View 518 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1994
Waste Recovery Cooperative v. County of Hennepin 517 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1994
Waste Recovery Cooperative v. County of Hennepin 517 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1994
As for Hennepin’s last-minute claim of official immunity, that doctrine “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.” -07 (Minn.1991) ().
Leonzal v. Grogan 516 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Leonzal v. Grogan 516 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Bauer v. State 511 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 1994
Bauer v. State 511 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 1994
The judge concluded that “absolute privilege” did not apply
Stone v. Badgerow 511 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Stone v. Badgerow 511 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
-41 (Minn.App.1990), aff'd
Johnson v. County of Dakota 510 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Johnson v. County of Dakota 510 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Hyland v. State 509 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Hyland v. State 509 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rasivong v. Lakewood Community College 504 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rasivong v. Lakewood Community College 504 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
The discretionary acts exception is intended “to preserve the separation of powers by insulating executive and legislative policy decisions from judicial review through tort actions.” ().
McDonough v. City of Rosemount 503 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Soucek v. Banham 503 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
McDonough v. City of Rosemount 503 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Soucek v. Banham 503 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
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.
Gasparre v. City of St. Paul 501 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Maras v. City of Brainerd 502 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Gasparre v. City of St. Paul 501 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Maras v. City of Brainerd 502 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View 498 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View 498 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(malice in this context is the intentional doing of a wrongful act without legal justification).
Baker v. Chaplin 497 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Baker v. Chaplin 497 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
LeBaron v. Minnesota Board of Public Defense 499 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
LeBaron v. Minnesota Board of Public Defense 499 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Johnson, d at 42 ; see Wagner v. State Dep’t of Health and Social Servs., (official immunity affords no protection for conduct that is intentional).
Culberson v. Chapman 496 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Culberson v. Chapman 496 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Carradine v. State 494 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Carradine v. State 494 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
The purpose behind the official immunity doctrine 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 duties.” ( , 233 n. 1 (Minn.1988)).
Mitchell v. Steffen 487 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Mitchell v. Steffen 487 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(state’s unamenability to suit under § 1983 not dis-positive of whether action may be brought under any common law theory).
Pletan v. Gaines 481 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Pletan v. Gaines 481 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1992