Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): public official or employee must breach a ministerial duty imposed by statute or by regulation.” Norton does not cite to any authority or provide any rationale for that statement; moreover, NoHon made that comment solely in the context of the public duty doctrine. Id. The Missouri Supreme Court has declared that, absent allegations that a state official violated “either a statutory or departmentally-mandated duty,” a petition’s pleadings “are insufficient to state a claim which is not barred by the doctrine of official immunity as a matter of law.” State ex rel Twiehaus v. Adolf, 706 S.W.2d 443, 445 (Mo.1986). But a “departmentally-mandated duty” may clearly arise from sources other than statutes or regulations. Such a duty can arise from departmental rules, the orders of a s E.D.2010) (<HOLDING>); Geiger v. Boiversox, 974 S.W.2d 513, 517 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that emergency medical technicians and paramedics were not entitled to official immunity for their actions related to the treatment of patients in nonemergency situations (B) holding that defendants were entitled to official immunity and not addressing the merits (C) holding that because a city inspector was not entitled to official immunity the city was not entitled to vicarious official immunity (D) holding that patients who were denied medical treatment on nonemergency basis had standing to bring antitrust action against medical center (E) holding nurses were not entitled to official immunity where it was alleged that they failed to follow orders for a patients care given to them by a doctor
Output (English): holding that because a city inspector was not entitled to official immunity the city was not entitled to vicarious official immunity