Cited by

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

116 citing documents.

Riedel v. Goodwin 574 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Riedel v. Goodwin 574 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
ANALYSIS An appellate court reviews the denial of an immunity-based motion for summary judgment de novo “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
Minnesota Brewing Co. v. Egan & Sons Co. 574 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1998
Minnesota Brewing Co. v. Egan & Sons Co. 574 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1998
Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n
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
Statutory immunity exists to prevent courts from reviewing after-the-fact “certain policy-making activities that are legislative or executive in nature.” Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n, (quoting Nusbaum, d at *371 718 ).
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
3, will be called “statutory” immunity); Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n, (stating that municipality’s “discretionary function” immunity, Minn.Stat.
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
Watson by Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n
Cousin v. Hennepin County Medical Center 565 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Cousin v. Hennepin County Medical Center 565 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
If a governmental decision involves political, social, and economic considerations “that lie at the center of discretionary action, including consideration of safety issues, financial burdens, and possible legal consequences, it is not the role of courts to second-guess such policy decisions.” Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n
In Re Alexandria Accident of February 8, 1994 561 N.W.2d 543 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In Re Alexandria Accident of February 8, 1994 561 N.W.2d 543 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Com’n, (decision on how most effectively to deploy security resources on buses constitutes planning-level conduct protected by statutory immunity); McEwen v. Burlington N. R.R.
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
Its intent is to prevent courts from second- *121 guessing “‘policy-making activities that are legislative or executive in nature.’ ” Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n, ().