Holmquist v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the purpose of statutory immunity is to protect government actions from “judicial second-guessing”
• underscoring that the state did not show that failure to place a warning sign at a particular location was the result of a policy-making decision subject to statutory immunity
• concluding “[t]he State has not shown, indeed it has made no attempt to show, that the absence of a warning sign at the location in question was the result of a policymaking decision”
• acknowledging that even the implementation of a policy may involve policy- making
• finding no proximate causation by state’s failure to post narrow shoulder warning sign because driver produced no evidence connecting the change in the width of the shoulder and the driver’s accident
• distinguishing between an operational decision to post a traffic sign at a particular location, which involved professional judgment, from a policy decision directing if and where traffic signs should be placed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).