§
Subdivision 1.Applicability.
The definitions in this section apply to sections 351.14 to 351.23.
§
Subd. 2.Malfeasance.
"Malfeasance" means the willful commission of an unlawful or wrongful act in the performance of a public official's duties which is outside the scope of the authority of the public official and which infringes on the rights of any person or entity.
§
Subd. 3.Nonfeasance.
"Nonfeasance" means the willful failure to perform a specific act which is a required part of the duties of the public official.
§
Subd. 4.Misfeasance.
"Misfeasance" means the negligent performance of the duties of a public official or the negligent failure to perform a specific act which is a required part of the duties of the public official.
§
Subd. 5.Elected county official.
"Elected county official" means any public official who is elected to countywide office or appointed to an elective countywide office, including county attorney, county sheriff, county auditor, county recorder, county treasurer, and soil and water conservation supervisor. "Elected county official" also means a county commissioner elected or appointed from a commissioner district or a soil and water conservation district supervisor elected or appointed from a supervisor district established under section 103C.311, subdivision 2.
Notes of Decisions
In Re Proposed Petition to Recall Hatch, 628 N.W.2d 125 (Minn. 2001).
“§ 351.14, subd. 3 (2000). Therefore, the legislature’s clear intent that a failure to act be repeated before the official is sub *129 ject to recall for nonfeasance in office must be given effect.”
Claude v. Collins, 507 N.W.2d 452 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “The Minnesota Legislature has defined “malfeasance” and “nonfeasance” in the context of procedures for removing county officials: “Malfeasance” means the willful commission of an unlawful or wrongful act in the performance of a public official’s duties which is outside the scope…”
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. Cnty. of Mille Lacs, Minnesota (D. Minnesota 2023).
“§ 351.14, subd. 5. As elected law enforcement 12 The Minnesota Supreme Court has addressed whether Walsh and Lorge are state employees in a state-court declaratory judgment action in which Walsh and Lorge sought indemnification and defense under Minnesota’s State Tort Claims Act…”
Op. Atty. Gen. 59a-30 (Minn. Att'y Gen. 1996).
· cites it 2× “The proposed language may be interpreted3 to say that missing six meetings in six months constitutes nonfeasance ge_r § without regard to the reasons the meetings were missed 3.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.