vicarious official immunity in Minnesota

2017See Olson, 509 N.W.2d at 372 (recognizing that employee’s immunity extends to employer through doctrine of vicarious official immunity).

2006“This court applies vicarious official immunity when failure to grant it would focus ‘stifling attention’ on an official’s performance ‘to the serious detriment of that performance.’ ” Id. at 663 (quoting Olson v. Ramsey County, 509 N.W.2d 368, 372 (Minn. 1993)).

1999Generally, if an employee is found to be immune, then the claim against the municipal employer has been dismissed without explanation. 1 See Pletan, 494 N.W.2d at 42 (recognizing the doctrine of vicarious official immunity).

1999Generally, if an employee is found to be immune, then the claim against the municipal employer has been dismissed without explanation. 1 See Pletan, 494 N.W.2d at 42 (recognizing the doctrine of vicarious official immunity).

2006"This court applies vicarious official immunity when failure to grant it would focus `stifling attention' on an official's performance `to the serious detriment of that performance.'" Id. at 663 (quoting Olson v. Ramsey County, 509 N.W.2d 368, 372 (Minn. 1993)).

2006“This court applies vicarious official immunity when failure to grant it would focus ‘stifling attention’ on an official’s performance ‘to the serious detriment of that performance.’ ” Id. at 663 (quoting Olson v. Ramsey County, 509 N.W.2d 368, 372 (Minn. 1993)).

2015However, we note that “a government employer may generally invoke the doctrine of vicarious official immunity even if the individual official whose conduct is at issue is not a named defendant in the suit.” Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis, 581 N.W.2d 312, 317 (Minn. 1998). 9 Respondents’ breach-of-warranty claim is an action based in contract.3 Thus, the district court did not err in concluding that official immunity does not apply and denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment.

2015However, we note that “a government employer may generally invoke the doctrine of vicarious official immunity even if the individual official whose conduct is at issue is not a named defendant in the suit.” Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis, 581 N.W.2d 312, 317 (Minn. 1998). 9 Respondents’ breach-of-warranty claim is an action based in contract.3 Thus, the district court did not err in concluding that official immunity does not apply and denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment.

2017“Summary judgment is appropriate when a governmental entity has established that its actions are immune from civil liability.” Brown v. City of Bloomington, 706 N.W.2d 519, 522 (Minn. App. 2005), review denied (Minn. Feb. 22, 2006).

2016A. Approximately a quarter century ago, Justice Simonett wrote that, in determining whether the doctrine of official immunity applies, “it is essential to identify the precise governmental conduct at issue.” Olson v. Ramsey County, 509 N.W.2d 368, 371 (Minn. 1993) (emphasis added) (citing Nusbaum v. Blue Earth County, 422 N.W.2d 713, 722 (Minn. 1988)).

1997See Pletan v. Gaines, 494 N.W.2d 38, 42-43 (Minn.1992); Ireland v. Crow’s Nest Yachts, Inc., 552 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Minn.App.1996), review denied (Minn. Sept. 20, 1996).

1997See Pletan v. Gaines, 494 N.W.2d 38, 42-43 (Minn.1992); Ireland v. Crow’s Nest Yachts, Inc., 552 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Minn.App.1996), review denied (Minn. Sept. 20, 1996).