Cited by

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

154 citing documents.

Steinke v. City of Andover 525 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 1994
Steinke v. City of Andover 525 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 1994
reh’g denied (Minn., Aug.
Waste Recovery Cooperative v. County of Hennepin 517 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1994
Waste Recovery Cooperative v. County of Hennepin 517 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1994
This follows from the purpose of discretionary function immunity, which is to prevent courts from passing judgment “on policy decisions entrusted to coordinate branches of government.” see also, Nusbaum, d at 718 .
Olson v. Ramsey County 509 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1993
Olson v. Ramsey County 509 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1993
6 (1992), which precludes municipal tort liability for claims “based upon the performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the *371 discretion is abused.”
Hyland v. State 509 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Hyland v. State 509 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
( , 233 n. 1 (Minn.1988)).
Doyle v. City of Roseville 507 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Doyle v. City of Roseville 507 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rasivong v. Lakewood Community College 504 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rasivong v. Lakewood Community College 504 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
The crucial inquiry is “ ‘whether the conduct involves the balancing of public policy considerations in the formulation of policy.’ ” -44 (Minn.1992) ().
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
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
The purpose of the immunity is “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).
Maras v. City of Brainerd 502 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Maras v. City of Brainerd 502 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Olson v. Ramsey County 497 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Olson v. Ramsey County 497 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
LeBaron v. Minnesota Board of Public Defense 499 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
LeBaron v. Minnesota Board of Public Defense 499 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
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).
S.L.D. v. Kranz 498 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
S.L.D. v. Kranz 498 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Sota Foods, Inc. v. Larson-Peterson & Associates, Inc. 497 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Sota Foods, Inc. v. Larson-Peterson & Associates, Inc. 497 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Masonick v. J.P. Homes, Inc. 494 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Masonick v. J.P. Homes, Inc. 494 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Its purpose is to “assure that the courts do not pass judgment on policy decisions entrusted to coordinate branches of government.”
Pletan v. Gaines 494 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1992
Pletan v. Gaines 494 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1992
Recently, however, , 233 n. 1 (Minn.1988), we noted, “[N]ot infrequently a governmental entity is required to compensate for the harm done by a public official even though the official is not held personally liable,” citing Bermann, Integrating Governmental and Officer Tort Liability, 77 Colum.L.Rev.
Carradine v. State 494 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Carradine v. State 494 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
The purpose behind the official immunity doctrine is “to insure that the threat of potential liability does not unduly inhibit the exercise of discretion required of public officers in the discharge of their duties.” ( , 233 n. 1 (Minn.1988)).
Pletan v. Gaines 481 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Pletan v. Gaines 481 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Sayers Ex Rel. Sayers v. Beltrami County 472 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Sayers Ex Rel. Sayers v. Beltrami County 472 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
The purpose of the discretionary immunity exception is to preserve the separation of powers by assuring that “the courts do not pass judgment on policy decisions entrusted to coordinate branches of government.”
Rico v. State 472 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1991
Rico v. State 472 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1991
Invest Cast, Inc. v. City of Blaine 471 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Invest Cast, Inc. v. City of Blaine 471 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Dahlheimer at 538-39 ().
Abo El Ela v. State 468 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Abo El Ela v. State 468 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Pletan v. Gaines 460 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Pletan v. Gaines 460 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Schaeffer v. State 444 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Schaeffer v. State 444 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Gorecki v. County of Hennepin, Dept. of Public Works 443 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Gorecki v. County of Hennepin, Dept. of Public Works 443 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hennes v. Patterson 443 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hennes v. Patterson 443 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
We believe the issue of discretionary immunity can be resolved under two recent supreme court cases