00-1825 Bicknese v. Sutula, et al.

By: dmc-admin//September 4, 2001//

Listen to this article

Alma Bicknese appeals from a postverdict judgment dismissing her claims against Thomas Sutula for promissory estoppel and intentional misrepresentation. After the jury found in favor of Bicknese on the estoppel claim, the trial court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict and dismissed Bicknese’s claims, agreeing with Sutula that he was immune from personal liability as a public employee. Bicknese argues that Sutula was not entitled to immunity either because (1) he was carrying out ministerial rather than discretionary duties, or (2) he acted knowingly and intentionally. We disagree with Bicknese and conclude that neither of the exceptions to immunity on which she relies apply to Sutula.

We therefore affirm the judgment.

Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Dane County, DeChambeau, J., Dykman, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Mary Kennelly, Madison

For Respondent: John R. Sweeney, Madison; Monica A. Burkert-Brist, Madison

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event