Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Schroeder v. St. Louis County

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 26, 2006No. A04-97Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHanson, Justice

I concur with the conclusion of the majority that Stephen Ario is not entitled to common law official immunity on the claim that he operated without lights, but I would go further, and thus respectfully dissent with respect to the conclusion that St. Louis County is entitled to either statutory immunity or vicarious official immunity on the claim that Ario was otherwise negligent in grading against traffic. I would conclude that statutory immunity is not available to the county because Ario’s decisions (1) not to deadhead and (2) to grade against traffic without giving any warning, were…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Spanel v. Mounds View School District No. 621Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
  2. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.California Court of Appeal · 1981
  3. Elwood v. County of RiceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  4. Pletan v. GainesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
  5. Cairl v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982

23 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