Kautzman v. McDonald’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 11 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The primary focus of the second part of the test is on the nature of the actions taken and on whether they are susceptible to policy analysis. Olson, 539 N.W.2d at 667 . We explained in Olson, 539 N.W.2d at 667-68 (citations omitted): The purpose of the discretionary function exception is to “prevent judicial ‘second-guessing’ of legislative and administrative decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the medium of an action in tort.” When properly construed, the exception should shield only governmental action based on public policy considerations. Moreover, public policy considerations, social, economic, or political, must be distinguished from more objective standards based on, for example, scientific, engineering, or technical considerations. The latter are not protected by the discretionary function exception, when the challenged conduct involves nothing more than a “follow the numbers” approach.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kappenman v. Klipfel

2. “The decision whether the Kautzmans’ dogs posed a danger to the deputies or to others, thereby justifying the dogs’ destruction, implicates no social, economic or political policy, and was merely an ordinary individualized judgment made by the deputies as part of their routine work duties. Discretionary function immunity does not shield individualized decisions such as these. See e.g., Fowler v. Town of Ticonderoga, 131 A.D.2d 919, 920 (1987); Annot.; Personal liability of public officer for killing or injuring animal while carrying out statutory duties with respect to it, 1965 WL 13278 , 2 A.L.R.3d 822 , at § 3[d] (1965).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 436 F. Supp. 2d 1022 - Geraci v. Women's Alliance, Inc.

3. “A political subdivision is exempt under N.D.C.C. § 32-12.1-03(3) from liability for an act or omission of its employees who are performing discretionary functions or duties. We engage in a two-part inquiry when determining whether the discretionary function exception applies: (1) whether the conduct at issue is discretionary, involving an element of judgment or choice for the acting employee; and (2) if the act is discretionary, whether that judgment or choice is of the kind the discretionary function exception was designed to shield. Olson v. City of Garrison, 539 N.W.2d 663, 666-67 (N.D.1995).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kappenman v. Klipfel