Legal Opinion
Tindell v. Rogosheske
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided September 2, 1988No. C5-87-2236PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AMDAHL, Chief Justice.
We granted further review to define the circumstances and extent of any immunity to be afforded a guardian ad litem acting within the scope of his duties when it is alleged that the guardian negligently performed those duties. The court of appeals held that the guardian is absolutely immune. See Tindell v. Rogosheske, 421 N.W.2d 340 (Minn.App.1988). We agree and affirm.
The respondent Paul Rogosheske was appointed by the district court as guardian ad litem on behalf of the minor , son of the appellant Cheryl Tindell. The appellant brought this action, alleging that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Pierson v. RaySupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Greg Myers, Etc. v. R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County Attorney, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1987
- Kurzawa v. MuellerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1984
- Gammel v. Ernst & ErnstSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
- In Re Scott County Master DocketDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1985
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Collins on Behalf of Collins v. TabetNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1991
- McKay v. OwensIdaho Supreme Court · 1997
- Scheib v. GrantCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- Short by Oosterhous v. ShortDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1990
- Dziubak v. MottSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.