Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Christgau v. Fine, 27 N.W.2d 193.

30 citing documents.

Jordan L. Oslund, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The sole issue on appeal is whether the ULJ erred in dismissing the appeal as untimely.3 199 (Minn. 1947); (“The only issue for our determination on this appeal is whether the ULJ erred by dismissing Murack’s administrative appeal as untimely without considering the impact of the executive order.”).
Derrick D. Turner, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating the only question before an appellate court when a ULJ dismisses an appeal as untimely is whether the ULJ erred in doing so; we do not consider the merits of the appeal).
Melodie Helquist, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Peggy J. Green, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of: Diana Murack. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Nancy Peterson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A20-0613 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Shawn O’Toole, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Matter of: Mohamed Abdirahman. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Matter of: Tracy Toulouse. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Tami Kraker, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Mackenzie Carney, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 193, 199 (Minn. 1947).
Douglas Westphal, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(considering only the jurisdictional issue).
Sujata Sangwan, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Christgau v. Fine, 223 Minn. 452, 463
Jagjewan Tamaldeo, Relator v. Marsden Building Maintenance LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jagjewan Tamaldeo, Relator v. Marsden Building Maintenance LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Christgau v. Fine, 223 Minn. 452, 463
Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 551 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 551 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Christgau v. Fine, 223 Minn. 452, 463 , (stating that jurisdictional issue was the only issue on appeal from a Commissioner’s decision based on lack of jurisdiction).
Leisure Hills of Grand Rapids, Inc. v. Levine 366 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Leisure Hills of Grand Rapids, Inc. v. Levine 366 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Cf. Christgau v. Fine, 223 Minn. 452 , (division of employment and security had jurisdiction to review contribution rate appeal filed after 30 day appeal period but before six month discretionary review period had elapsed).
Vavoulis v. 1965 & 1966 Contribution Rate of Electronic Development Co. 164 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1969
Vavoulis v. 1965 & 1966 Contribution Rate of Electronic Development Co. 164 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1969
Relator, in arguing that the commissioner had the authority to review its rate, relies on Christgau v. Fine, 223 Minn. 452 , 27 N. W. (2d) 193 , and the portion of § 268.06, subd.
Larson v. Christgau 51 N.W.2d 63 Minn. 1952
Larson v. Christgau 51 N.W.2d 63 Minn. 1952
However, he did protest the rate on April 24,1947, nearly one month late; but the division, apparently under the assumption that it was required to do so under our holding in Christgau v. Fine, 223 Minn. 452 , 27 N. W. (2d) 193 , granted a hearing on this protest and offered to hear employer on the issue of clerical errors or computations in fixing the 1947 rate.
Nicollet Hotel Co. v. Christgau 40 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1950
Nicollet Hotel Co. v. Christgau 40 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1950
*68 State v. Donovan, 218 Minn. 606 , 16 N. W. (2d) 897 ; State v. Industrial Tool & Die Works, Inc. 220 Minn. 591 , 21 N. W. (2d) 31 ; Christgau v. Fine, 223 Minn. 452 , 27 N. W. (2d) 193 ; General Mills, Inc. v. Div. of Employment & Security, 224 Minn. 306 , 28 N. W. (2d) 847 .
State Ex Rel. Spurck v. Civil Service Board 32 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1948
State Ex Rel. Spurck v. Civil Service Board 32 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1948
r the statute governing ordinary appeals in civil actions (Barlau v. Minneapolis-Moline P. I. Co. 214 Minn. 564 , 9 N. W. [2d] 6), and of so-called appeals which lack the attributes of judicial appeals and are nothing more than administrative procedures designed to facilitate and expedite action with rehearing and review within the administrative setup of which they are a part (Christgau v. Fine, 223 Minn. 452 , 27 N. W. [2d] 193).
Hempel v. Hempel 30 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1948
Hempel v. Hempel 30 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1948
Christgau v. Fine, 223 Minn. 452 , 27 N. W. (2d) 193 .