Dickerson v. Mertz

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that various tort claims against state employees fell within the ambit of the ITCA because plaintiff failed to allege they were acting outside the scope of employment
• finding that a lower court erred in refusing to extend immunity to a state employee for claims of abuse of process and malicious prosecution on the basis of law that predated the enactment of § 669.23
• referring to statute providing that state employees “are not personally liable” for certain claims as granting such employees immunity
• finding state department of natural resources employees were cloaked with sovereign immunity because plaintiff did not allege they were acting outside the scope of their employment
• referring to statute providing that state employees “are not personally liable” for certain claims as granting such employees immunity
• issuing two citations for violation of hunting laws of which defendant was acquitted, confiscating and refusing to return invalid hunting license, repeated and rude checks of plaintiffs hunting license, and refusal to allow plaintiff to keep a road-killed deer were not sufficiently outrageous

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).