DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Carradine v. State, 511 N.W.2d 733.

36 citing documents.

  • Thaleaha McBee v. Team Industries, Inc. Minn. 2025
  • Thaleaha McBee v. Team Industries, Inc. Minn. 2025
    official duties, to communicate defamatory material”); –37 (Minn. 1994) (state trooper had “absolute immunity from a civil suit in defamation for the statements made in the written police report”); (“Two categories of privilege exist as defenses 11 against defamation claim
  • Minn. 2025
    official duties, to communicate defamatory material”); –37 (Minn. 1994) (state trooper had “absolute immunity from a civil suit in defamation for the statements made in the written police report”) ; (“Two categories of privilege exist as defenses 12 against defamation claims—absolute privilege and conditional or ‘ qua
  • A24-1331 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    In Carradine v. State, the supreme court extended absolute immunity to statements made by police officers in arrest reports by considering “the nature of the function assigned to the officer and the relationship of the statements to the performance of that function.”
  • James Jesse Hunter, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    See, ( holding statements in a police officer’s report were protected from a claim for defamation by absolute privilege).
  • Minn. 2020
    d 733, 737 (Minn. 1994) (concluding that a police officer was not necessarily entitled to immunity from a defamation claim based on statements the officer made to the press because the officer’s duties did not include responding to press inquiries).
  • Ryan Larson, Minn. 2020
    4 We have applied an absolute privilege to statements made by participants in judicial proceedings, statements made by a high-level agency official in the performance of official duties, and statements made by a state trooper in a written arrest report, –37 (Minn. 1994).
  • Hollis J. Larson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    “Whether an executive officer is absolutely immune from defamation liability depends on many factors, including the nature of the function assigned to the officer and the relations hip of the statements to the performance of that function.”
  • Larson v. Gannett Co. 915 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • Larson v. Gannett Co. 915 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    d at 332 (emphasis added) (quotation omitted); see also Carradine v. State , , 737 (Minn. 1994) (holding police officer comments to press that departed from official report and added to plaintiff's injury were not privileged).
  • Michael Harlow v. State of Minnesota Department of Human Services 883 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2016
  • Michael Harlow v. State of Minnesota Department of Human Services 883 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2016
    *571 Dirkswager, d at 221 .
  • State of Minnesota v. Michael Donovan Krauss Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Michael Donovan Krauss Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    t a “reasonably competent law enforcement officer” could believe that there was a substantial likelihood that an individual would fail to respond to a citation where the record demonstrated that the individual and his traveling companion were not Minnesota residents and that the individual was driving at a high rate of speed toward the airport), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds
  • Minke v. City of Minneapolis 845 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 2014
  • Minke v. City of Minneapolis 845 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 2014
  • Zutz v. Nelson 788 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 2010
  • Zutz v. Nelson 788 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 2010
  • Moreno v. Crookston Times Printing Co. 610 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2000
  • Moreno v. Crookston Times Printing Co. 610 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2000
  • 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
    Paul, (police officer allegedly twisted and broke arm of nonthreatening suspect); (police officer allegedly fabricated and misrepresented circumstances surrounding suspect’s arrest), aff'd in part, rev’d in part
  • Buchanan v. Minnesota State Department of Health 573 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • Buchanan v. Minnesota State Department of Health 573 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    see also Dirkswager, d at 223 (holding that Minnesota Department of Public Welfare Commissioner has absolute privilege).
  • Redwood County Telephone Co. v. Luttman 567 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Redwood County Telephone Co. v. Luttman 567 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    The same absolute privilege recognized fof high-level government executive officers in Dirkswager was applied to statements made by a
  • Bol v. Cole 561 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 1997
  • Bol v. Cole 561 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 1997
    See, -37 (Minn.1994); -23 (Minn.1982).
  • 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
    (discretionary immunity); (official immunity), affd in part, rev’d in part
  • Diver v. Peterson 524 N.W.2d 288 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Diver v. Peterson 524 N.W.2d 288 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    (high level executive officers have absolute immunity from suit for defamatory statements made in the course of their duties).
  • BD. OF REGENTS OF U OF M v. Reid 522 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • BD. OF REGENTS OF U OF M v. Reid 522 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    see also Restatement (Second) of Torts Topic 2.
  • Bauer v. State 511 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 1994
  • Bauer v. State 511 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 1994
    also decided this day, is of assistance to plaintiff.