Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gonzales v. Hollins, 386 N.W.2d 842.

25 citing documents.

Tama May Boe Kerber, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 842, 845 (Minn. App. 1986) (stating that non -moving party must establish material-fact issues).
Ai Viet Thi Nguyen v. Phu Chau Nguyen 565 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Ai Viet Thi Nguyen v. Phu Chau Nguyen 565 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
dangerous condition, the presence or absence of warning signs was in the range of discretionary acts.”); (stating that the failure to post warning signs or the failure to place guardrails on a bridge are discretionary acts “unless the County had notice of a dangerous condition”), review denied (Minn. June 25, 1987); (stating that a city’s decision to replace a semaphore with a stop sign was a discretionary act absent proof that the city had knowledge of a dangerous condition existing at the time
McNamara v. McLean 531 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
McNamara v. McLean 531 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
While planning level decisions involve public policy questions “such as the financial, political, economic, and social effects of a given plan or policy,” operational level decisions involve conduct that simply “puts into effect a predetermined plan.”
Gutbrod v. County of Hennepin 529 N.W.2d 720 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Gutbrod v. County of Hennepin 529 N.W.2d 720 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
56.05; (nonmoving party cannot simply rely on its pleadings to defeat summary judgment motion supported by affidavits).
Soucek v. Banham 503 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Soucek v. Banham 503 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
An operational level decision involves “conduct which merely puts into effect a predetermined plan.”
Sota Foods, Inc. v. Larson-Peterson & Associates, Inc. 497 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Sota Foods, Inc. v. Larson-Peterson & Associates, Inc. 497 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Masonick v. J.P. Homes, Inc. 494 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Masonick v. J.P. Homes, Inc. 494 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In contrast, an operational level decision involves “conduct which merely puts into effect a predetermined plan.”
Wornson v. Chrysler Corp. 436 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Wornson v. Chrysler Corp. 436 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
a motorist was injured when a second motorist drove through a stop sign.
Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth 422 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 1988
Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth 422 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 1988
(decision to replace traffic lights with stop signs was part of program to save resources due to budgetary cuts; therefore, decision was based on policy considerations and was protected).
Berg v. City of St. Paul 414 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Berg v. City of St. Paul 414 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth 411 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth 411 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Respondent claims that the signing of highways is entitled to discretionary immunity because it involves balancing competing considerations of safety and allocation of scarce funding resources
Seaton v. County of Scott 404 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Seaton v. County of Scott 404 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The test for determining whether an act is discretionary or ministerial is “whether an act is a planning decision or is merely ‘operational’.”
Stucci Ex Rel. Tierney v. City of Saint Paul 403 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Stucci Ex Rel. Tierney v. City of Saint Paul 403 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1987