Legal Opinion
Erickson v. County of Clay
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided February 27, 1990No. C4-89-1633PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HUSPENI, Judge.
Respondent Robert A. Erickson sought redress under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under theories of defamation, malicious prosecution, negligent supervision of the prosecuting attorney, and vicarious liability. Appellants Clay County and its prosecutors, Larry Mickelberg and Donald Shoop, its investigator Larry Costello and its informant (John Doe) moved to dismiss the complaint under Minn.R.Civ.P. 12.02 for failure to state a claim because of absolute prosecu-torial immunity.
The trial court considered matters outside the pleadings and treated appellants’ motion as one for summary…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Imbler v. PachtmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Greg Myers, Etc. v. R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County Attorney, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1987
- Anderson v. City of HopkinsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Brown v. Dayton Hudson Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Lawrence v. City of St. PaulDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2010
- Estate of CashmoreNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2010
- Masonick v. J.P. Homes, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
- Zutz v. KamrowskiNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2010
- Johnson v. Northside Residents Redevelopment CouncilCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.