Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Holmquist v. State, 425 N.W.2d 230.

154 citing documents.

Gerber v. Neveaux 578 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Gerber v. Neveaux 578 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
To determine whether an activity is a protected planning-level act, the crucial question is “whether the challenged government action involves the balancing of public policy considerations in the formulation of policy.”
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
Riedel v. Goodwin 574 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Riedel v. Goodwin 574 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See, e.g., Nusbaum d at 722 n. 6 (where challenged conduct facially involves balancing policy objectives, government need not produce evidence of how decision is made); (”[A]doption of standards or regulations is considered a protected planning level activity because it almost inevitably requires the balancing of policy considerations.”)
Landview Landscaping, Inc. v. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 569 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Landview Landscaping, Inc. v. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 569 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
6, is “to prevent courts from passing judgment ‘on policy decisions entrusted to coordinate branches of government.’ ” Waste Recovery, d at 332 ()
S.W. v. Spring Lake Park School District No. 16 566 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
S.W. v. Spring Lake Park School District No. 16 566 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(ministerial duties involve mere execution of specific duty from fixed and designated facts and are not immune).
Angell v. Hennepin County 565 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Angell v. Hennepin County 565 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 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
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
Norton v. County of Le Sueur 565 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Cousin v. Hennepin County Medical Center 565 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Cousin v. Hennepin County Medical Center 565 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Immune planning level decisions involve questions of public policy, which are “the evaluation of factors such as the financial, political, economic, and social effects of a given plan or policy.”
Norton v. County of Le Sueur 565 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
see also 1963 Minn. Laws ch. 798, §.
Terwilliger v. Hennepin County 561 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1997
Terwilliger v. Hennepin County 561 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1997
-32 (Minn.1988) (citations 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
Bol v. Cole 561 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 1997
Bol v. Cole 561 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 1997
(interpreting “discretionary function” in State Tort Claims Act narrowly).
Davis v. Hennepin County 559 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Davis v. Hennepin County 559 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Zank v. Larson 552 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1996
Zank v. Larson 552 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1996
t the discretion is abused.” In determining whether particular government activity is protected by statutory immunity, we have interpreted the discretionary function exception narrowly and have focused on its underlying purpose'— to preserve the separation of powers by preventing courts from passing judgment “on policy decisions entrusted to coordinate branches of government.”
Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 553 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1996
Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 553 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1996
“The crucial question, as always, is whether the conduct involves the balancing of public policy considerations in the formulation of policy.” .
Carter v. Peace Officers Standards & Training Board 547 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Carter v. Peace Officers Standards & Training Board 547 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
The purposes of the two doctrines differ: statutory discretionary immunity is “designed to preserve the separation of power,” whereas common law official immunity is “intended to insure that the threat of potential personal liability does not unduly inhibit the exercise of discretion required of public officials in the discharge of their duties.” , 233 n. 1 (Minn.1988).
Killen v. Independent School District No. 706 547 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Killen v. Independent School District No. 706 547 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Vrieze v. New Century Homes, Inc. 542 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Vrieze v. New Century Homes, Inc. 542 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Watson ex rel. Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 540 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Watson ex rel. Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 540 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
The application of immunity is “limited to decisions which involve the balancing of competing public policy considerations.” -32 (Minn.1988).
Janklow v. BD. OF EXAM. FOR NURS. HOME 536 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Janklow v. BD. OF EXAM. FOR NURS. HOME 536 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
( , 233 n. 1 (Minn.1988)) (emphasis supplied).
Johnson v. State 536 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Johnson v. State 536 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Discretionary function immunity is “designed to preserve the separation of powers,” whereas official immunity is “primarily intended to insure that the threat of potential personal liability does not unduly inhibit the exercise of discretion required of public officials in the discharge of their duties.” n. 1 (Minn.1988).
Janklow v. Minnesota Board of Examiners for Nursing Home Administrators 536 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Janklow v. Minnesota Board of Examiners for Nursing Home Administrators 536 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
This immunity “insure[s] that the threat of potential personal liability does not unduly inhibit the exercise of discretion required of public officials.” ( , 233 n. 1 (Minn.1988)) (emphasis supplied).
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