Cook v. Trovatten

91 Citing cases

  1. Rico v. State

    472 N.W.2d 100 (Minn. 1991)   Cited 264 times
    Discussing official immunity; quoting Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224, 274 N.W. 165, 167

    The court has described an official's duty as ministerial "when it is absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts." Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224, 274 N.W. 165, 167 (1937) (citations omitted). Under these standards, the decision to remove an unclassified policy-making employee, who may be discharged at any time without reason, is discretionary rather than ministerial.

  2. Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Indep

    678 N.W.2d 651 (Minn. 2004)   Cited 127 times
    Holding that unwritten protocol imposed ministerial duty on high school teacher concerning safe operation of table saw

    Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis, 581 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 1998) (quoting Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224, 274 N.W. 165, 167 (1937) (citation omitted)). Thus, in Wiederholt we held that a city sidewalk inspector's duty was ministerial when a city ordinance established "fixed and designated facts," i.e., that protrusion of any sidewalk slab more than one inch above the adjacent slab would require immediate repair.

  3. Vassallo v. Majeski

    842 N.W.2d 456 (Minn. 2014)   Cited 62 times
    Holding discretionary a police officer's duty to drive through red lights safely when responding to emergency situation

    As noted previously, a ministerial duty is “simple and definite, leaving nothing to the discretion of the official.” Kelly, 598 N.W.2d at 664 (citing Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224, 274 N.W. 165, 167 (1937)). In Thompson v. City of Minneapolis, 707 N.W.2d 669 (Minn.2006), we held that a policy similar to the Hennepin County policy at issue here created a ministerial duty.

  4. Mumm v. Mornson

    708 N.W.2d 475 (Minn. 2006)   Cited 134 times
    Holding that the officers were not entitled to official immunity because they failed to comply with ministerial policy

    " Id. A ministerial act is one that is "`absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.'" Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224, 274 N.W. 165, 167 (1937) (quoting People v. May, 251 Ill. 54, 95 N.E. 999, 1000 (1911)). A ministerial duty leaves nothing to discretion; it is "`a simple, definite duty arising under and because of stated conditions.'"

  5. Thompson v. City of Minneapolis

    707 N.W.2d 669 (Minn. 2006)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that police officer and city not entitled to summary judgment on defense of official immunity for injury of pedestrian struck during pursuit that violated internal written policy

    A ministerial act, in contrast, is "`absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.'" Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224, 274 N.W. 165, 167 (1937) (quoting People v. May, 251 Ill. 54, 95 N.E. 999, 1000 (1911)). In order to determine whether the conflicting accounts of the officers' conduct raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the officers' official immunity, we first must determine "`the precise governmental conduct at issue.'"

  6. Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis

    581 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. 1998)   Cited 159 times
    Holding that where "[official] was not entitled to official immunity ... the city is not entitled to vicarious official immunity"

    In contrast, a ministerial duty is one in which nothing is left to discretion; it is "absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts." Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224, 274 N.W. 165, 167 (1937) (citation omitted). When the job is "simple and definite" and therefore "clearly ministerial," the public employee is not entitled to official immunity.

  7. Johnson v. State

    553 N.W.2d 40 (Minn. 1996)   Cited 155 times
    Holding that halfway house did not have duty to control parolee

    This court has defined a ministerial duty as "absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts." Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224, 274 N.W. 165, 167 (1937); see, e.g., Larson v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 314, 289 N.W.2d 112, 120-21 (Minn. 1979) (supervising and teaching a gymnastics exercise a ministerial duty); Williamson v. Cain, 310 Minn. 59, 245 N.W.2d 242, 244 (1976) (dismantling an abandoned house a ministerial duty).

  8. Elwood v. Rice County

    423 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 1988)   Cited 299 times
    Holding that police officers, under the circumstances in which they entered a home and restrained the occupants, exercised the kind of judgment protected by official immunity

    Nevertheless, some basic principles emerge from the cases. In Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224, 274 N.W. 165, 167 (1937), this court explained that "[o]fficial duty is ministerial when it is absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts." Applying this principle, state employees did not perform a discretionary act when they removed an abandoned house with a tractor in Williamson v. Cain, 310 Minn. 59, 61, 245 N.W.2d 242, 244 (1976).

  9. CONNOR v. CITY OF LA CRESCENT

    No. A10-1585 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 6, 2011)

    A ministerial act is one that is "absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts." Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224, 274 N.W. 165, 167 (1937) (quotation omitted). Such an act leaves nothing to discretion; it is "a simple, definite duty arising under and because of stated conditions."

  10. Jacobson v. City of Bloomington

    No. A07-1061 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 3, 2008)

    A ministerial act, in contrast, is an act taken pursuant to a duty that is ""absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.'" Cook v. Trovatten, 200 Minn. 221, 224, 274 N.W. 165, 167 (1937) (quoting People v. May, 251 Ill. 54, 57, 95 N.E. 999, 1000 (1911)). A government official is not protected by immunity when he or she fails to perform a ministerial act or when his or her performance of a discretionary act is willful or malicious.