Cited by

By contrast, ministerial duties are “absolute, certain, and imperative, [and] involv[e] merely execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.” (quotation omitted).

(reinstating jury finding where the evidence supported “at least two theories” consistent with the jury’s findings in its special verdict form).

“Whether a particular statute or policy creates a ministerial duty is ordinarily a question of law.” Vassallo, d at 464 ( n.5 (Minn 1999)).

“[A] special verdict form is to be liberally construed to give effect to the intention of the jury and on appellate review it is the court’s responsibility to harmonize all findings if at all possible.”

“[A] special verdict form is to be liberally construed to give effect to the intention of the jury and on appellate review it is the court’s responsibility to harmonize all findings if at all possible.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., ().

“[T]he conduct of police officers in responding to a dispatch or making an arrest involves precisely the type of discretionary decisions, often split-second and on meager information, that [the supreme court] intended to protect from judicial second-guessing through the doctrine of official immunity.”

And although the issue whether an official’s conduct was malicious is often a fact question, Kelly v. City of Minneapolis , n. 5 (Minn. 1999), we can decide the issue as a matter of law if there is no evidence that would support a finding of malice, see Vassallo, d at 465.

The conduct is ministerial if it arises from duties that are “abso lute, certain, and imperative, and involve [s] merely execution of a specific d uty arising from fixed and designated facts,” thereby “leaving nothing to the discretion of the official.” Kelly v. City of Minneapolis , (quotation omitted).

As long as we can harmonize the jury’s special -verdict answers “on any theory consistent with the evidence and the fair inferences drawn from the evidence, the verdict will not be disturbed.” Frauenshuh, Inc., d at 486 (quotations omitted); (“[A] special verdict form is to be liberally construed to give effect to the intention of the jury .

Kelly v. City of Minneapolis

In reviewing the jury’s verdict, “a special verdict form 17 is to be liberally construed to give effect to the intention of the jury and on appellate review it is the court’s responsibility to harmonize all findings if at all possible.”

Generally, the existence of malice is a fact ques tion, Kelly v. City of Minneapolis , 4 n.5 (Minn. 1998), but the issue may be decided as a matter of law when the undisputed facts show a public official’s actions did not exhibit malice, Vassallo ex rel.

The conduct is ministerial if it arises from duties that are “absolute, certa in, and imperative, [a nd] involv[e] merely execution of a specific duty ar ising from fixed and designa ted facts,” thereby “leaving nothing to the discretion of the official.” Kelly v. City of Minneapolis , (quotation omitted).

A public official’s conduct will be deemed ministerial in nature if it arises from duties that are “‘absolute, certain, and imperative, [and] involv[e] merely execution of a specific duty arising fr om fixed and designated facts, ’” thereby “leaving nothing to the discretion of the official.” (alteration in original) (quoting Cook v. Trovatten, 274 N.W.

Kelly v. City of Minneapolis , -63 (Minn. 1999).

“Review [of a speci al verdict] is particularly limited when the jury finding turns largely upon an assessment of the relative credibility of witnesses whose testimonial demeanor was observed only by the jury and the [district] court and the latter has approved the findings m ade.” Kelly v. City of Minneapolis , -63 (Minn. 1999).

The existence of malice is generally a fact question, n.5 (Minn. 1999), but a reviewing court may resolve the question as a matter of law if th ere are no genuine issues of material fact, see Frankson v. Design Space Int’l, -45 (Minn. 1986).

The existence of malice is generally a fact question, n.5 (Minn. 1999), but a reviewing court may dispose of the question as a matter of law if there are no genuine issues of material fact.

“Review [of a special verdict] is particularly limited when the jury finding turns largely upon an assessment of the relative credibility of witnesses whose testimonial demeanor was observed only by the jury and the [district] court and the latter has approved the findings made.” -63 (Minn. 1999).

“Ministerial duties are absolute, certain, and imperative, and involve merely execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.” (quotation omitted).

‘‘[A] special verdict form is to be liberally construed to give effect to the intention of the jury and on appellate review it is the court’s responsibility to harmonize all findings if at all possible.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., () (internal quotation marks removed).

We have also said, “An answer to a special verdict question should be set aside only if it is perverse and palpably contrary to the evidence, or where the evidence is so clear as to leave no room for differences among reasonable persons.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“[A] special verdict form is to be liberally construed to give effect to the intention of the jury and on appellate review it is the court’s responsibility to harmonize all findings if at all possible.”

However, “a special verdict form is to be liberally construed to give effect to the intention of the jury and on appellate review it is the court’s responsibility to harmonize all findings if at all possible.”

“Malice in the context of official immunity means intentionally committing an act that the official has reason to believe is legally pro *509 hibited.”

665 *703 (Minn.1999) (holding that, despite the fact that police conduct is governed by extensive regulations, statutes, and caselaw, officers responding to dispatch or making an arrest are engaging in discretionary conduct because they are required to make split-second decisions based on incomplete information).

207 (WCCA), aff'd without opinion, the WCCA decided that unauthorized aliens who sustain work-related injuries are eligible for workers' compensation benefits.