Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission, 553 N.W.2d 406.

116 citing documents.

Schroeder v. St. Louis County 708 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2006
Schroeder v. St. Louis County 708 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2006
Thompson v. City of Minneapolis 707 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 2006
Mumm v. Mornson 708 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 2006
Mumm v. Mornson 708 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 2006
Thompson v. City of Minneapolis 707 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 2006
Brown v. City of Bloomington 706 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Brown v. City of Bloomington 706 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
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
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
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.” Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n, (quotations omitted).
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
Transit Comm’n, Elwood, d at 677 .
Minder v. Anoka County 677 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Minder v. Anoka County 677 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Transit Comm’n, (citation omitted).
Sletten v. Ramsey County 675 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2004
Sletten v. Ramsey County 675 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 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
Transit Comm’n, (citing Nusbaum, d at 719 ).
Zaske Ex Rel. Bratsch v. Lee 651 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Zaske Ex Rel. Bratsch v. Lee 651 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park 643 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park 643 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Loven v. City of Minneapolis 639 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 2002
Loven v. City of Minneapolis 639 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 2002
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
Transit Comm’n, (quotation omitted).
Fear v. Independent School District 911 634 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Fear v. Independent School District 911 634 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Transit Comm’n, (citation.
Huttner v. State 637 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Huttner v. State 637 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“The starting point for analysis of an immunity question is the identification of ‘the precise governmental conduct at issue.’ ” (quoting Watson by Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n, ), aff 'd in part
Conlin v. City of Saint Paul 605 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 2000
Conlin v. City of Saint Paul 605 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 2000
I. “On an appeal from summary judgment, this court determines whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in applying the law.” Watson by Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n
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 scope of our present inquiry was specifically set forth in Watson by Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n, where we said: “Until people carry out a governmental policy, by doing or not doing something, the policy is a dead letter.
Kari v. City of Maplewood 582 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1998
Kari v. City of Maplewood 582 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1998
Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n
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
Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n
Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis 581 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1998
Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis 581 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1998
Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n
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
Official immunity protects 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.’ ” ().
Gerber v. Neveaux 578 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Gerber v. Neveaux 578 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
6 (1996); Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n, (recognizing a municipality’s “statutory” immunity for discretionary functions under Minn.Stat.
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
See Watson by Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n, , 409 n. 1 (Minn. 1996); Janklow v. Minnesota Bd.
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
ANALYSIS We review the denial of an immunity-based motion for summary judgment “because immunity from suit is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Watson by Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n