Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Grushus v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., 100 N.W.2d 516.

28 citing documents.

Nina Wilson v. Mortgage Resource Center, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development 888 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2016
Nina Wilson v. Mortgage Resource Center, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development 888 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2016
Co., 257 Minn. 171, 176, )).
Lonn H. Luhman, Relator v. Red Wing Shoe Co., Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lonn H. Luhman, Relator v. Red Wing Shoe Co., Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Co., 257 Minn. 171, 176, (holding relator who failed to show up at work because he was arrested and incarcerated for an offense to which he entered a guilty plea had committed employee misconduct)); see also Smith, d at 45 (finding relator’s unavailability to work due to arrest and incarceration f
PETRACEK v. University of Minnesota 780 N.W.2d 927 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
PETRACEK v. University of Minnesota 780 N.W.2d 927 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Co., 257 Minn. 171, 176 , (providing for applicant’s disqualification for benefits “[i]f the commissioner finds that he has failed, without good cause to accept suitable work when offered to him”).
Carlson v. DEPT. OF EMPLOY. & ECON. DEV. 747 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Carlson v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 747 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Carlson v. DEPT. OF EMPLOY. & ECON. DEV. 747 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Co., 257 Minn. 171 , the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that an applicant who was "unable to accept" an offer of employment "because of his incarceration" was ineligible for and disqualified from receiving benefits because he had failed to accept suitable employment for reasons attributable solely to him.
Carlson v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 747 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Co., 257 Minn. 171 , the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that an applicant who was “unable to accept” an offer of employment “because of his incarceration” was ineligible for and disqualified from receiving benefits because he had failed to accept suitable employment for reasons attributable solely to him.
Work Connection, Inc. v. Bui 749 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Work Connection, Inc. v. Bui 749 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Co., 257 Minn. 171, 175 , ).
Jenkins v. American Express Financial Corp. 721 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 2006
Jenkins v. American Express Financial Corp. 721 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 2006
Jenkins v. AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL CORP. 702 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Jenkins v. AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL CORP. 702 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Co., 257 Minn. 171, did not establish a per se rule of disqualification whenever an employee is incarcerated.
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
Grushus v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, 257 Minn. 171
Zielinski v. Ryan Co. 379 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Zielinski v. Ryan Co. 379 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Grushus v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., 257 Minn. 171, 174
Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc. 361 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc. 361 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Smith , we discussed two Minnesota Supreme Court cases: Moeller v. Minnesota Department of Transportation (excessive work absences due to alcoholism) and Grushus v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company, 257 Minn. 171 , (incarceration after plea of guilty).
Smith v. American Indian Chemical Dependency Diversion Project 343 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Smith v. American Indian Chemical Dependency Diversion Project 343 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Grushus v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, 257 Minn. 171 , dealt with the effect of incarceration upon an individual’s eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits in a slightly different context.
Peterson v. Haule 230 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1975
Peterson v. Haule 230 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1975
Co. 257 Minn. 171 , Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88
Richfield Federation of Teachers v. Richfield Education Ass'n 115 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1962
Richfield Federation of Teachers v. Richfield Education Ass'n 115 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1962
Co. 257 Minn. 171, 174 , 100 N. W. (2d) 516, 519 .