Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Pletan v. Gaines, 494 N.W.2d 38.

150 citing documents.

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
-43 (Minn.1992) (holding that official immunity extends vicariously to city because police officer’s decision to engage in car chase and to continue chase involves weighing of many factors, and failing to extend immunity may cause police officers to decline to engage in pursuit when pursuit is indicated).
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. Memo
Bailey v. City of St. Paul 678 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Bailey v. City of St. Paul 678 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Sletten v. Ramsey County 675 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2004
Sletten v. Ramsey County 675 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2004
(granting vicarious official immunity to county because to grant immunity to a county social worker but deny vicarious official immunity would deter county social worker’s performance by focusing “stifling attention” on the social worker’s performance “to the serious detriment of that performance”); -42 (Minn.1992) (noting that vicarious official immunity is often impliedly granted when there is official immunity but that our cases have suggested that vicarious official immunity does not necessa
Podruch v. State, Department of Public Safety 674 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Podruch v. State, Department of Public Safety 674 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 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
Riedel v. Goodwin, N.W.2d 753, 758 (Minn.App.1998), review denied (Minn. Apr.
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
Nelson v. Wrecker Services, Inc. 622 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Nelson v. Wrecker Services, Inc. 622 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(describing official immunity as a common-law doctrine that protects government officials from liability for discretionary acts taken in the course of their official duties).
Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 598 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1999
Kelly v. City of Minneapolis 598 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1999
e.g., Elwood, d at 678-79 (entering home and detaining suspects are the kind of actions meant to be protected by official immunity); (shooting tires of fleeing vehicle and handcuffing suspect “classic case of that type of exercise of discretion giving rise to official immunity” even if the actions constituted a battery); (decision to engage in high-speed chase of criminal suspect discretionary action entitled to official immunity), official immunity “is not intended to shield police brutality.”
Fisher v. County of Rock 596 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1999
Fisher v. County of Rock 596 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1999
S.W. v. Spring Lake Park School District No. 16 592 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
S.W. v. Spring Lake Park School District No. 16 592 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
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 distinction between “making” and “implementing” policy may be difficult but, because the implementation naturally has consequences, discretionary immunity “would afford little comfort if it did not extend to some of the consequences of the policy itself.”
Bloss v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents 590 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Bloss v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents 590 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
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
Official immunity protects actions “exercised on an operational rather than a policymaking level, and it requires something more than the performance of ‘ministerial’ duties.”
Kari v. City of Maplewood 582 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1998
Kari v. City of Maplewood 582 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1998
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
Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis 581 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1998
Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis 581 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1998
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
Gerber v. Neveaux 578 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Gerber v. Neveaux 578 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
“A court reviewing immunity issues must examine with particularity the nature of the conduct the plaintiff alleges as the basis of a negligence claim.” Watson, d at 411 ().
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
The distinction between policy-making activities and operational activities may involve “gray areas, [but] the underlying consideration is ^whether the conduct involves the balancing of public policy considerations in the formulation of policy.’ ” -44 (Minn.1992) (quoting Holmquist, d at 232 ).
Riedel v. Goodwin 574 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Riedel v. Goodwin 574 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(holding plaintiffs attack on bus company’s security and training provisions was attack on protected policy decision); (holding that where complaint was centered on school’s policy of making children responsible for boarding bus, plaintiff was asking court to reexamine protected planning decision).
Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations 563 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Norton v. County of Le Sueur 565 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Norton v. County of Le Sueur 565 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(-44 (Minn.1992), and Nusbaum, d at 719-20 ).
Terwilliger v. Hennepin County 561 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1997
Terwilliger v. Hennepin County 561 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1997
Official immunity protects “a public official charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of his judgment or discretion” from personal liability for damages “unless he is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong.” (citation omitted)
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
Davis v. Hennepin County 559 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1997