Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rasivong v. Lakewood Community College

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided August 17, 1993No. C3-93-249Published

1DissentNorton, Judge

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Lakewood’s failure to hire additional security for Southeast Asian Days was a policy-making decision protected by discretionary immunity.

Discretionary function immunity is the exception to the general rule of liability. Holmquist v. State, 425 N.W.2d 230, 231 (Minn.1988). Thus, discretionary function immunity must be construed narrowly to ensure the exception does not swallow the general rule of liability. Id. The burden is on the state to establish the challenged action was protected by discretionary function immunity. Nusbaum v.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & ClinicsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  2. Nusbaum v. County of Blue EarthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  3. Holmquist v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  4. Schaeffer v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
  5. Pletan v. GainesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990

2 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