consequences of withholding immunity (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

consequences of withholding immunity in Missouri

6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2023 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Kanagawa v. State by and Through Freemangreen
mo · 1985 · cited in 4 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1997–2023
2 sentences

2023Missouri courts consider three factors in determining whether an act is ministerial or discretionary: “(1) the nature of the duties; (2) how much policymaking or professional expertise 9 and judgment the act involves; and (3) the consequences of withholding immunity.” Davis, 193 S.W.3d at 763 (citing Kanagawa v. State By and Through Freeman, 685 S.W.2d 831, 836 (Mo. banc 1985).

2016Kanagawa, 685 S.W.2d at 836 .

24
Geiger v. Bowersoxgreen
moctapp · 1998 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006In Geiger v. Bowersox, a prison nurse’s duties were found to be ministerial because they only entailed following the prescribed prison policy. 974 S.W.2d 513, 517 (Mo.App.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Davis v. Lambert-St. Louis International Airport green
mo · 2006
2 sentences

2023Missouri courts consider three factors in determining whether an act is ministerial or discretionary: “(1) the nature of the duties; (2) how much policymaking or professional expertise 9 and judgment the act involves; and (3) the consequences of withholding immunity.” Davis, 193 S.W.3d at 763 (citing Kanagawa v. State By and Through Freeman, 685 S.W.2d 831, 836 (Mo. banc 1985).

2015“To discern whether an act is ministerial or discretionary, the court looks to three factors: (1) the nature of the duties; (2) how much policymaking or professional expertise and judgment the act involves; and (3) the consequences of withholding immunity.” Davis, 193 S.W.3d at 763 .

22015–2023

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check