Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Independent School District 11
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1DissentGilbert, Justice
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the court of appeals. I believe that Peterson and Anoka Hennepin Independent School District 11 should not be entitled to official immunity and vicarious official immunity because the specific conduct alleged to be negligent in this case — the decision to instruct respondent to make rip cuts with the blade guard disengaged — does not involve the type of activity protected by official immunity. The majority uses a circular analysis to conclude that Peterson’s conduct, though ministerial, should be entitled to official immunity because it was “required by…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Elwood v. County of RiceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Rico v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
- Pletan v. GainesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- Nusbaum v. County of Blue EarthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Watson v. Metropolitan Transit CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.