Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Davis v. Hennepin County, 559 N.W.2d 117.

24 citing documents.

Arianna Anderson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(concluding “statutory immunity may not be asserted to bar a claim arising under the [MHRA]”), rev. denied (Minn. May 20, 1997).
Alyssa M. Sweesy, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
s that the circumstances presented here, which included Officer Ramirez’s dual playing of the AM/FM radio while he was listening to the two -way police band radio, the issuance of an oral reprimand relative to his behavior, and his excessive speed, create an issue of material fact that should be “placed in front of a jury.” To support her position, Sweesy relies on Davis v. Hennepin County , review denied (Minn. May 20, 1997), arguing that the “framework” established in that case supports a dete
Magnolia 8 Properties, LLC v. City of Maple Plain 893 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Magnolia 8 Properties, LLC v. City of Maple Plain 893 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“Statutory immunity is absolute; if it applies to a given set of circumstances it absolutely bars suit and liability notwithstanding the nature of the events underlying a claim.”), review denied (Minn. May 20, 1997).
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
review denied (Minn. May 20,1997).
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
review denied (Minn. May 20, 1997).
Wallin v. Minnesota Department of Corrections 598 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Wallin v. Minnesota Department of Corrections 598 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(holding the aiding and abetting provision requires intentional conduct and actions are judged based on their objective reasonableness, and further noting that the proof required to sustain the claim is similar to that required for actual malice), review denied (Minn. May 20, 1997).
Doe v. Park Center High School 592 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Doe v. Park Center High School 592 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
The validity of an immunity defense is a question of law, ( , 675 (Minn.1988)), review denied (Minn. May 20, 1997), which this court considers without deference to the decision of the district court.
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
review denied (Minn. May 20, 1997).
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
(holding that statutory immunity is abrogated by the MHRA).
Riedel v. Goodwin 574 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Riedel v. Goodwin 574 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
review denied, (Minn. May 20, 1997).
Costilla v. State 571 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Costilla v. State 571 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
review denied (Minn. May 20, 1997).
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
See Davis v. Hennepin *316 County, (applying two-step process), review denied (Minn. May 20,1997).
Edina Education Ass'n v. Board of Education 562 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Edina Education Ass'n v. Board of Education 562 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Id.; (Human Rights Act impliedly waived statutory immunity for claims against the government arising under that Act).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by