Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. Morris, 453 N.W.2d 31.

80 citing documents.

Messan Adjignon, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Its two operative elements are intent and offensive contact.”
James Thomas Miller, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Its two operative elements are intent and offensive contact.” (citation omitted).
Mark J. Kallenbach, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
But neither civil assault nor battery includes the identity of the tortfeasor as an element of a claim , -41 (Minn. 1990) (describing the elements of civil assault and battery), and a review of the caselaw does not support Kallenbach’s assertion that knowledge of an alleged tortfeasor’s identity is required to trigger the statute of limitations.1 In Herrmann, the supreme court considered whether a plaintiff’s kn
In Re: Henry Hickman, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Battery is an intentional, unpermitted offensive contact with another.”
Samson Longtin, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
at 852; see also Thomsen v. Ross, 368 F. Supp. 2d 961, 976-77 (D. Minn. 2005)
In re the Matter of: Victoria Carlson and Stephen Carlson, Appellants, vs. Pam Wheelock, in her official capacity … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
§ 1983 (requiring a deprivation of rights); - 35 (Minn. 1990); see also City of Mounds View v. Metro.
Heather Jones, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
But “[w]hether or not an officer acted maliciously or willfully is usually a question of fact to be resolved by a jury.”
Christine Dittel v. Farmers Insurance Exchange Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Christine Dittel v. Farmers Insurance Exchange Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that the “two operative elements” of battery are “intent and offensive contact”); (“A battery is defined as an intentional unpermitted offensive contact with another.” (Footnote omitted.)).
J.E.B. v. Danks 785 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 2010
Explained J.E.B. v. Danks 785 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 2010
Lickteig v. Kolar 782 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 2010
Lickteig v. Kolar 782 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 2010
Its two operative elements are intent and offensive contact.” (internal citation omitted).
Williams v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. 763 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Williams v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. 763 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Mumm v. Mornson 708 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 2006
Mumm v. Mornson 708 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 2006
When a plaintiff has not specified in the complaint the particular constitutional provisions that form the basis of his claims, we have at times nonetheless chosen to address the plaintiffs constitutional claims “if the facts alleged * * * state a claim.” , 35 n. 7 (Minn.1990); Elwood, d at 675 .
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
-42 (Minn.1990); see also Elwood, d at 678 (stating that police responding to emergencies such as domestic disputes “are afforded a wide degree of discretion precisely because a more stringent standard could inhibit action”).
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
Police officers are “classified as discretionary officers entitled to that immunity.”
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
Police officers are typically “classified as discretionary officers entitled to [official] immunity.”
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
(citing Northernaire Productions, Inc. v. County of Crow Wing, 309 Minn. 386, 390 , aff ''d, Koderick v. Snyder Brothers Drug, Inc., overruled by Kaiser v. Memorial Blood Center of Minneapolis, Inc., ).
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
State v. Ortiz 626 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Ortiz 626 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(holding that intentional discharge of gun toward another is “deadly force”).
State v. Trei 624 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 598 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1999
Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 598 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1999
The trial court held that appellants Wells and Roiger, as well as the City of Minneapolis, were protected from liability by official immunity because regardless of their intentional infliction of emotional distress, they had not acted with malice
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
(police allegedly detained suspects for longer than necessary and lied to suspects about basis for traffic stop); (police officer allegedly pointed revolver at defendant’s head and threatened to shoot without proper basis for doing so); -61 (Minn.App.1993) (police allegedly shot dog that had wolf-life appearance, despite knowing it was a dog); Maras v. City of Brainerd, 502 N.W
Duellman v. Erwin 522 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Duellman v. Erwin 522 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(police investigatory stop of armed robbery suspect); (police response to driver who refused to pull over); Elwood, d at 674 (police response to possibly armed man threatening his former wife).
Leonzal v. Grogan 516 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Leonzal v. Grogan 516 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Johnson v. County of Dakota 510 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Johnson v. County of Dakota 510 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Hyland v. State 509 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Hyland v. State 509 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin 504 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin 504 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
2727, 2733 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)
McDonough v. City of Rosemount 503 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Soucek v. Banham 503 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
McDonough v. City of Rosemount 503 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Soucek v. Banham 503 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
des that “a public official charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of his judgment or discretion is not personally liable to an individual for damages unless he is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong.” , 677 (Minn.1988) (emphasis added) (quoting Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 175 , ); -42 (Minn. 1990).
Gasparre v. City of St. Paul 501 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Maras v. City of Brainerd 502 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1993