§ 13.43

Webster v. Hennepin Cnty. · 2018 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Robert Burks, Respondent/Cross-appellant v. Metropolitan Council, Appellant/Cross-respondent. · 2016 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

KSTP-TV v. Metropolitan Council · 2016 31 citations

+ 31 more citations in this opinion.

Michael Harlow v. State of Minnesota Department of Human Services · 2016 14 citations

+ 14 more citations in this opinion.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 292 v. City of St. Cloud · 2009 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Republican Party of Minnesota v. O'CONNOR · 2004 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Star Tribune Co. v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents · 2004 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

Navarre v. South Washington County Schools · 2002 11 citations

+ 11 more citations in this opinion.

Wiegel v. City of St. Paul · 2002 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Kobluk v. University of Minnesota · 1998 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Demers v. City of Minneapolis · 1991 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale · 1989 32 citations

+ 32 more citations in this opinion.

Patrick Exner v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Kristina Jean Powers v. Superintendent James Freihammer, in his official capacity · 2016 1 citation

subd. 2(b) (2014), or Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2(d) (2014).

Robert Burks v. The Metropolitan Council · 2015 7 citations

classified as public in Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2 (2014). Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 4

classified as public in Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2 (2014). Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 4

classified as public in Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2 (2014). Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 4

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

In the Matter of: KSTP-TV v. Metro Transit, Below, Metropolitan Council, Relator. · 2015 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

Michael Harlow v. State of Minnesota Department of Human Services · 2015 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Levi Braziel, Jr. · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

S.F. v. Clay County · 2014 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Greg Peterson, Relator v. Richfield Civil Service Commission · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Sheryl v. Mooers v. City of Lake City, Minnesota, Karen England, individually · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Schwanke v. Minnesota Department of Administration · 2013 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 292 v. City of St. Cloud · 2008 39 citations

+ 39 more citations in this opinion.

City of Duluth v. Duluth Police Local · 2004 12 citations

+ 12 more citations in this opinion.

Free Press v. County of Blue Earth · 2004 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Star Tribune Co. v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents · 2003 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Star Tribune v. City of St. Paul · 2003 11 citations

+ 11 more citations in this opinion.

Navarre v. South Washington County Schools · 2001 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

Manson v. State, Department of Employee Relations · 2000 7 citations

+ 7 more citations in this opinion.

Kobluk v. University of Minnesota · 2000 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Fieno v. State · 1997 4 citations

In her complaint, Fieno alleges' that appellant’s written reprimand and performance evaluation were defamatory per se. In response, Leatherbarrow asserts that he, as the holder of an absolute privilege, is entitled to absolute immunity from Fieno’s claim of defamation. Leatherbarrow argues that he is entitled to absolute immunity because the written reprimand at issue here is public personnel data pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2 (1996). We agree and find that the argument also applies to the performance evaluation.

In her complaint, Fieno alleges' that appellant’s written reprimand and performance evaluation were defamatory per se. In response, Leatherbarrow asserts that he, as the holder of an absolute privilege, is entitled to absolute immunity from Fieno’s claim of defamation. Leatherbarrow argues that he is entitled to absolute immunity because the written reprimand at issue here is public personnel data pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2 (1996). We agree and find that the argument also applies to the performance evaluation.

In her complaint, Fieno alleges' that appellant’s written reprimand and performance evaluation were defamatory per se. In response, Leatherbarrow asserts that he, as the holder of an absolute privilege, is entitled to absolute immunity from Fieno’s claim of defamation. Leatherbarrow argues that he is entitled to absolute immunity because the written reprimand at issue here is public personnel data pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2 (1996). We agree and find that the argument also applies to the performance evaluation.

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Renneke · 1997 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Mankato Free Press Co. v. City of North Mankato · 1997 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Edina Education Ass'n v. Board of Education · 1997 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Deli v. Hasselmo · 1996 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Minneapolis Federation of Teachers v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 · 1994 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

Unke v. Independent School District No. 147 · 1994 4 citations

The Data Practices Act provides that all personnel data on public employees is private *273 unless otherwise specified in the statute. Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 4 (1990). The following information is public:

The Data Practices Act provides that all personnel data on public employees is private *273 unless otherwise specified in the statute. Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 4 (1990). The following information is public:

The Data Practices Act provides that all personnel data on public employees is private *273 unless otherwise specified in the statute. Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 4 (1990). The following information is public:

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Demers v. City of Minneapolis · 1992 8 citations

This case involves a question of statutory interpretation under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 13 (1990). David Pearce Demers sued the City of Minneapolis for access to information, including complaint forms, created during several, noncurrent internal investigations. The trial court concluded most of the requested data was private personnel data under Minn. Stat. § 13.43. On appeal, Demers argues (1) the supreme court’s decision in Demers v. City of Mpls., 468 *830 N.W.2d 71 (Minn.1991) compels disclosure of the complaint forms, (2) the data he seeks is public under Minn. Stat. § 13.82, and (3) the city violated the reasonable time provisions of Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 3 in responding to his request for data. We disagree and affirm.

This case involves a question of statutory interpretation under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 13 (1990). David Pearce Demers sued the City of Minneapolis for access to information, including complaint forms, created during several, noncurrent internal investigations. The trial court concluded most of the requested data was private personnel data under Minn. Stat. § 13.43. On appeal, Demers argues (1) the supreme court’s decision in Demers v. City of Mpls., 468 *830 N.W.2d 71 (Minn.1991) compels disclosure of the complaint forms, (2) the data he seeks is public under Minn. Stat. § 13.82, and (3) the city violated the reasonable time provisions of Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 3 in responding to his request for data. We disagree and affirm.

This case involves a question of statutory interpretation under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 13 (1990). David Pearce Demers sued the City of Minneapolis for access to information, including complaint forms, created during several, noncurrent internal investigations. The trial court concluded most of the requested data was private personnel data under Minn. Stat. § 13.43. On appeal, Demers argues (1) the supreme court’s decision in Demers v. City of Mpls., 468 *830 N.W.2d 71 (Minn.1991) compels disclosure of the complaint forms, (2) the data he seeks is public under Minn. Stat. § 13.82, and (3) the city violated the reasonable time provisions of Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 3 in responding to his request for data. We disagree and affirm.

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

Pathmanathan v. St. Cloud State University · 1990 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Demers v. City of Minneapolis · 1990 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

In Re the Proposed Termination of James E. Johnson's Teaching Contract With Independent School District No. 709 · 1990 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

McGaa v. Glumack · 1989 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

The Minnesota Daily v. University of Minnesota · 1988 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale · 1988 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State, City of Minneapolis v. Lynch · 1986 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Grossman v. School Board of I.S.D. 640 · 1986 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Itasca County Board of Commissioners v. Olson · 1985 12 citations

+ 12 more citations in this opinion.

State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Colonna · 1985 14 citations

+ 14 more citations in this opinion.

Freier v. Independent School District No. 197 · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Shopek v. Minneapolis, City of · 2025 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Kasso v. City of Minneapolis · 2025 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Kasso v. City of Minneapolis · 2024 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · 2023 2 citations

1 The term “Defendants” as used herein includes the Defendants who jointly filed their opposition to Mr. Larson’s Motion (ECF No. 50) (“DHS Defendants”), and Defendant Michael Woods, who filed a separate response to Mr. Larson’s Motion (ECF No. 53). (Id. at 2.) Mr. Woods works at the Minnesota Office of Ombudsman for Mental Health and Development Disabilities, while the individual DHS Defendants work for the Minnesota Department of Human Services in various roles. Larson with Defendant Lindlbauer’s home address (ECF No. 34). On October 20, 2023, Defendants confirmed that Mr. Larson was prohibited from obtaining Mr. Lindlbauer’s address (ECF No. 38 at 3, citing Minn. Stat. §§ 13.43, subs. 4 and 5a), but stated defense counsel was, at that point, authorized to accept or waive service on behalf of all Defendants except Defendant

1 The term “Defendants” as used herein includes the Defendants who jointly filed their opposition to Mr. Larson’s Motion (ECF No. 50) (“DHS Defendants”), and Defendant Michael Woods, who filed a separate response to Mr. Larson’s Motion (ECF No. 53). (Id. at 2.) Mr. Woods works at the Minnesota Office of Ombudsman for Mental Health and Development Disabilities, while the individual DHS Defendants work for the Minnesota Department of Human Services in various roles. Larson with Defendant Lindlbauer’s home address (ECF No. 34). On October 20, 2023, Defendants confirmed that Mr. Larson was prohibited from obtaining Mr. Lindlbauer’s address (ECF No. 38 at 3, citing Minn. Stat. §§ 13.43, subs. 4 and 5a), but stated defense counsel was, at that point, authorized to accept or waive service on behalf of all Defendants except Defendant

Evans v. Krook · 2022 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Hemmah v. City of Red Wing · 2008 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. County of Hennepin · 1985 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.