DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 61 N.W.2d 526.

39 citing documents.

  • Prickett v. Circuit Science, Inc. 518 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 1994
  • Prickett v. Circuit Science, Inc. 518 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 1994
    The court of appeals reversed, holding that the rule set out in Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 240 Minn. 449 , and Thompson v. Schraiber, 253 Minn. 46 , that inability to obtain child care for certain shifts rendered the claimants “unavailable for work” and justified denial of benefits, had been “substantially eroded by time” and was “ill suited to modern childcare realities.” Prick
  • Prickett v. Circuit Science, Inc. 499 N.W.2d 506 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Prickett v. Circuit Science, Inc. 499 N.W.2d 506 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    In Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 240 Minn. 449, 458 , the supreme court held that refusal to accept an offer of reemployment, because of inability to obtain child care for a 7:00 or 7:30 a.m.
  • Flores v. Department of Jobs & Training 411 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 1987
  • Flores v. Department of Jobs & Training 411 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 1987
    Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 240 Minn. 449
  • Kranstover v. Bergen's Greenhouse 404 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Kranstover v. Bergen's Greenhouse 404 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Lewis v. Minneapolis Moline, Inc., 288 Minn. 432, 437 , (quoting from Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 240 Minn. 449, 458 , ).
  • Flores v. Department of Jobs and Training 393 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Flores v. Department of Jobs and Training 393 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Swanson v. Minneapolis Honeywell Regulator Company, 240 Minn. 449, 452-455 , -30 (1953).
  • Henry v. Dolphin Temporary Help Services 386 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Henry v. Dolphin Temporary Help Services 386 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    he statute also indicates that an individual must be disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits if he refuses to “accept suitable work when offered him.” The supreme court has construed “suitable work” as “such work as the employee customarily performs or such as he is reasonably fitted to perform by past experience or training.” Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 240 Minn. 449, 457
  • Mastley v. Commissioner of Economic Security 347 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Mastley v. Commissioner of Economic Security 347 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Suitable work has been defined as “such work as the employee customarily performs or such as he is reasonably fitted to perform by past experience or train-ing_” Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company, 240 Minn. 449, 457
  • Preiss v. Commissioner of Economic Security 347 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Preiss v. Commissioner of Economic Security 347 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Suitable work has been defined by the Minnesota Supreme Court as “such work as the employee customarily performs or such as he is reasonably fitted to perform by past experience or training....” Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company, 240 Minn. 449, 457
  • Hendrickson v. Northfield Cleaners 295 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 1980
  • Hendrickson v. Northfield Cleaners 295 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 1980
    § 268.03 (1978) that unemployment reserves be used “for the benefit of persons unemployed through no fault of their own.” See, e. g., Sajevic v. Greenbrier Home, Inc., 298 Minn. 574 , Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell *386 Regulator Co., 240 Minn. 449 , Nordling v. Ford Motor Co., 231 Minn. 68
  • Semanko v. Department of Employment Services 244 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 1976
  • Semanko v. Department of Employment Services 244 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 1976
    Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. 240 Minn. 449
  • Hill v. Contract Beverages, Inc. 240 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1976
  • Hill v. Contract Beverages, Inc. 240 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1976
    Prior decisions, Johnson v. Levy, 240 Minn. 502 , and Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. 240 Minn. 449 , *359 (1953), have sustained the denial of benefits where employees terminated their work because of their particular needs.
  • Lewis v. Minneapolis Moline, Inc. 181 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1970
  • Lewis v. Minneapolis Moline, Inc. 181 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1970
    In Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. 240 Minn. 449, 457 , 61 N. W. (2d) 526, 532 , this court recognized that the terms “good cause,” “available for work,” and “suitable work” have caused confusion in the courts, with some courts embracing certain facts under one of the requirements and others placing them under a different statutory requirement.
  • Olson v. Starkey 107 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1961
  • Olson v. Starkey 107 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1961
    This court has defined the term “available for work” in Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. 240 Minn. 449 , 61 N. W. (2d) 526 .
  • Capra v. Carpenter Paper Co. 104 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 1960
  • Capra v. Carpenter Paper Co. 104 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 1960
    1, which so far as applicable here provides: “An individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week of unemployment only if the commissioner finds that: “(3) He was able to work and was available for work, * * The employers point to our decision in Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. 240 Minn. 449 , 61 N. W. (2d) 526 , where we said that an individual was not available for work unless he was “accessible or attainable for work when suitable work is offered.” They
  • Grushus v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 100 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 1960
  • Grushus v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 100 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 1960
    ork and * * * available for work, * * The state deduces from this that because of the employee’s incarceration he was neither “able to work” nor “available for work” and that during the period of his incarceration he was consequently “ineligible” for benefits and because of his status while so detained he could not be “disqualified.” The parties cite Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. 240 Minn. 449 , 61 N. W. (2d) 526 ; Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp. 254 Minn. 93 , 93 N. W. (2d) 815
  • Thompson v. Schraiber 90 N.W.2d 915 Minn. 1958
  • Thompson v. Schraiber 90 N.W.2d 915 Minn. 1958
    The instant case is governed by Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. 240 Minn. 449 , 61 N. W. (2d) 526 .
  • Bergseth v. Zinsmaster Baking Co. 89 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1958
  • Bergseth v. Zinsmaster Baking Co. 89 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1958
    Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. 240 Minn. 449, 456 , 61 N. W. (2d) 526, 531 .
  • Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co. 74 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1956
  • Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co. 74 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1956
    o any week of unemployment only if the commissioner finds that: -:*• *• * -x- * “(3) He was able to work and was available for work, * * It asserts that the reason the employee refused to accept the position offered by the parent was because the quitting time of the proffered employment was 6:30 p. m. rather than 5:30 p. m. Eelying on our decision in Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. 240 Minn. 449 , 61 N. W. (2d) 526 , it argues that the employee failed *287 to make himself “availab
  • Beaman v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 277 P.2d 1010 Ariz. 1954
  • Johnson v. Levy 61 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 1953
  • Johnson v. Levy 61 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 1953
    1(5), in Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. 240 Minn. 449 , 61 N. W. (2d) 526 .