Hawkinson v. Anoka County

2 Citing cases

  1. Krawiecki v. Hawley

    08-CV-5309 (JMR/RLE) (D. Minn. Aug. 17, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    The parties, however, dispute whether statutory immunity bars claims against Sheriff Lindgren. The law is clear — Minnesota does not limit the doctrine to counties.See, e.g., Mann v. Shevich, No. 08-5202, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16109, at *28 (D. Minn. 2010) (finding sheriff and county immune); Hawkinson v. Anoka County, No. A05-2251, 2006 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 996, at *14-15 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2006) (finding district court erred in not finding statutory immunity for a county and its sheriff). Both the County and the Sheriff are entitled to statutory immunity.

  2. Holscher v. Hawley

    08-CV-5310 (JMR/RLE) (D. Minn. Aug. 17, 2010)

    (Pls.' Mem. Opp. Summ. J. 18.) They are wrong. Minnesota does not limit this doctrine to counties. See, e.g., Mann v. Shevich, No. 08-5202, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16109, at *28 (D. Minn. 2010) (finding sheriff and county immune); Hawkinson v. Anoka County, No. A05-2251, 2006 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 996, at *14-15 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2006) (finding district court erred in not finding statutory immunity for a county and its sheriff). Both Mille Lacs County and Sheriff Lindgren are immune from plaintiffs' claims.