protected from liability by vicarious official immunity. The district court also noted that even if the officers are not entitled to official immunity, their duty to render “unquestioning obedience” in executing the district court’s order protects them from liability. Pahnke’s appeal challenges those determinations, asserting that the district court misapplied the law and identifying disputed facts that she contends are material to the immunity decision. Whether to apply official immunity is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Thompson v. City of Minneapolis, 707 N.W.2d 669, 673 (Minn.2006). Official immunity shields a public official from personal liability when the official is “charged by law with duties which ca ity of Chaska, 685 N.W.2d 725, 730 (Minn.App.2004) (<HOLDING>), review denied (Minn. Nov. 23, 2004). We
holding that an appellate court can review a district courts decision to remand when that decision rests upon a ground not authorized by statute holding that a defendant generally may not challenge an enhanced sentence through a section 2254 petition on the ground that the prior conviction was unconstitutionally obtained holding an issue not preserved when one ground is raised to the trial court and another ground is raised on appeal holding that officers decision during training exercise to place an individual on the ground through a controlled takedown was dis cretionary act holding that in reviewing a district courts decision on a motion for summary judgment de novo the decision can be affirmed on any ground that finds support in the record including an alternate ground