Legal Opinion · Dissent

Zutz v. Nelson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided September 9, 2010No. A08-1764Published

1Dissent

ANDERSON, PAUL H., J.,

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. The majority relies on two of our older cases — one from 1909 and the other from 1967 — in declining to extend absolute legislative privilege to statements made by watershed district board members in their official capacities. Jones v. Monico, 276 Minn. 371, 150 N.W.2d 213 (1967); Burch v. Bernard, 107 Minn. 210, 120 N.W. 33 (1909). Since we decided those cases, a contrary trend has emerged in several other jurisdictions, extending absolute privilege beyond a state’s highest legislative bodies. I find the authority supporting the…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Tenney v. BrandhoveSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  2. Barr v. MatteoSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  3. Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning AgencySupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. Gregoire v. BiddleCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1949
  5. Bogan v. Scott-HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1998

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API