Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp., 93 N.W.2d 815.

50 citing documents.

Michael Olson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Shanahan v. District Memorial Hospital 495 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Shanahan v. District Memorial Hospital 495 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp., 254 Minn. 93, 98
Lilledahl v. Process Displays Co. 413 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lilledahl v. Process Displays Co. 413 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See, (overruled by 1979 Minn.Laws ch. 181 § 11); Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp., 254 Minn. 93 , (overruled by 1983 Minn.Laws ch. 372 § 26); Bergseth v. Zinsmaster Baking Co., 252 Minn. 63 , (overruled by 1977 Minn.Laws ch. 242 § 1); Jackson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 234 Minn. 52 , (overruled by 1975 Minn. Laws ch. 336 § 3).
Armar Corp. v. Malinski 362 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
LaSalle Cartage Co., Inc. v. Hampton 362 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
LaSalle Cartage Co., Inc. v. Hampton 362 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Jansen v. Peoples Electric Company, Inc., Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp., 254 Minn. 93
Armar Corp. v. Malinski 362 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
It is determined “not by the immediate cause or motive for the act but by whether the employee directly or indirectly exercised a free-will choice and control as to the performance or nonperformance of the act.” Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp., 254 Minn. 93, 98
Seacrist v. City of Cottage Grove 344 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Seacrist v. City of Cottage Grove 344 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The question of whether a termination is voluntary or involuntary is determined “not by the immediate cause or motive for the act but by whether the employee directly or indirectly exercised a freewill choice and control as to the performance or non-performance of the act.” Anson v. Fisher Amusement Cory., 254 Minn. 93, 98 , Wing-Piu Chan v. Pagoda, Inc.
Wing-Piu Chan v. Pagoda, Inc. 342 N.W.2d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Wing-Piu Chan v. Pagoda, Inc. 342 N.W.2d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The question of whether a termination is voluntary or involuntary is determined, “not by the immediate cause or motive for the act but by whether the employee directly or indirectly exercised a free-will choice and control as to the performance or non-performance of the act.” Anson v. Fischer Amusement Corp., 254 Minn. 93, 98
Salamon v. Time Share Computer Systems, Inc. 341 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
Salamon v. Time Share Computer Systems, Inc. 341 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
See Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp., 254 Minn. 93
Ramirez v. Metro Waste Control Commission 340 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
Ramirez v. Metro Waste Control Commission 340 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
See Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp., 254 Minn. 93, 98
White v. Metropolitan Medical Center 332 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 1983
Jansen v. PEOPLES ELEC. CO., INC. 317 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1982
Jansen v. PEOPLES ELEC. CO., INC. 317 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1982
In Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp., 254 Minn. 93 , a movie projectionist who was a member of a nonlocal union lost his job to a member of the local union with seniority status.
Loftis v. Legionville School Safety Patrol Training Center, Inc. 297 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1980
Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Economic Security v. City of Duluth 297 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 1980
Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Economic Security v. City of Duluth 297 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 1980
In construing this statute and the word “voluntary” in Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp., 254 Minn. 93, 98 , we held: *241 If the act of employment separation was performed by [the employee] * * * indirectly by his act of vesting in another discretionary authority to act in his behalf, the ultimate resulting act is a voluntary one which disqualifies him for compensation.
Loftis v. Legionville School Safety Patrol Training Center, Inc. 297 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1980
the years, however, we have judicially expanded the dictionary meaning of “voluntary” to disqualify otherwise eligible claimants under what has come to be called the “constructive voluntary quit rule.” Thus, separations from employment have been labeled “voluntary” when they result from the operation of seniority systems based on collective bargaining agreements, Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp., 254 Minn. 93 , Stawikowski v. Collins Elec.
Stawikowski v. Collins Electric Construction Co. 289 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1979
Stawikowski v. Collins Electric Construction Co. 289 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1979
1, as interpreted by Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp., 254 Minn. 93 , “voluntarily and without good cause attributable to the employer discontinued his employment.” Claimants acknowledge that the Anson case is controlling and requires affirmance but urge, joined by the Department of Economic Security, that this court reconsider the interpretation of that statutor
Hanson v. I. D. S. Properties Management Co. 242 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1976
Hanson v. I. D. S. Properties Management Co. 242 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1976
The commissioner of employment services based his decision denying unemployment compensation on Bergseth v. Zinsmaster Baking Co. 252 Minn. 63 , and, by implication, on Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp. 254 Minn. 93
Tripp v. Alley Construction Company, Inc. 210 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1973
Tripp v. Alley Construction Company, Inc. 210 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1973
1 The purposes and policy of the statute have been fully discussed in Nordling v. Ford Motor Co. 231 Minn. 68 , Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp. 254 Minn. 93 , Johnson v. Wilson & Co. 266 Minn. 500 , Adelsman v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 267 Minn. 116, 122 , Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. 289 Minn. 388, 393 , and Lehmann v. Western Airlines, Inc. 291 Minn. 6, 9 , 188
State Ex Rel. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 34 v. Buck 184 N.W.2d 805 Minn. 1971
State Ex Rel. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 34 v. Buck 184 N.W.2d 805 Minn. 1971
Schmerler Ford, Inc. v. N. L. R. B. (7 Cir.) 424 F. (2d) 1335; N. L. R. B. v. David Buttrick Co. (1 Cir.) 399 F. (2d) 505; Local 57, I. L. G. W. U. v. N. L. R. B. 126 App. D. C. 81, 374 F. (2d) 295, certiorari denied, 387 U. S 942, 87 S. Ct. 2074 , 2078, 18 L. ed. (2d) 1328; Retail Clerks Union, Local 770 v. N. L. R. B. (9 Cir.) 370 F. (2d) 205; Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp. 254 Minn. 93 , 93 N. W. (2d) 815 ; Mueller v. Chicago & N. W. Ry.
Johnson v. Ford Motor Company 184 N.W.2d 786 Minn. 1971
Johnson v. Ford Motor Company 184 N.W.2d 786 Minn. 1971
In support of this assertion, relator cites Jackson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. 234 Minn. 52 , 47 N. W. (2d) 449 ; Bergseth v. Zinsmaster Baking Co. 252 Minn. 63 , 89 N. W. (2d) 172 ; 5 and Anson v. *401 Fisher Amusement Corp. 254 Minn. 93 , 93 N. W. (2d) 815 .
Sarja v. Iron Range Resources & Rehabilitation 144 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1966
Sarja v. Iron Range Resources & Rehabilitation 144 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1966
We are bound to hold that “discharge” must include the lesser “suspension.” Appellant refers to only one case in his brief, Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp. 254 Minn. 93 , 93 N. W. (2d) 815 .
Adelsman v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 125 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 1963
Adelsman v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 125 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 1963
2 Bucko v. J. F. Quest Foundry Co. 229 Minn. 131 , 38 N. W. (2d) 223 ; Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co. 246 Minn. 279 , 74 N. W. (2d) 518 ; Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp. 254 Minn. 93 , 93 N. W. (2d) 815 .
Kitchen v. G. R. Herberger's, Inc. 114 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 1962
Kitchen v. G. R. Herberger's, Inc. 114 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 1962
In Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp. 254 Minn. 93 , 93 N. W. (2d) 815 , the decision turned upon the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement.
Stream v. Continental MacHines, Inc. 111 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1961
Stream v. Continental MacHines, Inc. 111 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1961
In Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp. 254 Minn. 93 , 93 N. W. (2d) 815 , the claimant was not a union member, but accepted employment with full knowledge of the seniority rules of a collective-bargaining agreement.
Easthagen v. Naugle-Leck, Inc. 109 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 1961
Easthagen v. Naugle-Leck, Inc. 109 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 1961
ough no fault of their own.” With this basic concept in mind, this court has held that the purpose of the act is to assist those who are unfortunate enough to be involuntarily unemployed, Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co. 246 Minn. 279 , 74 N. W. (2d) 518 ; that the act’s design is to relieve hardship caused by unemployment due to no fault of an employee, Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp. 254 Minn. 93 , 93 N. W. (2d) 815 ; Nordling v. Ford Motor Co. 231 Minn. 68 , 42 N. W. (2d) 576 , 28
Hessler v. American Television & Radio Co. 104 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1960
Hessler v. American Television & Radio Co. 104 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1960
*553 This court in Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp. 254 Minn. 93, 96 , 93 N. W. (2d) 815, 818 , said: “Normally, either the employee has voluntarily terminated his employment, in which case no compensation is paid, or the employer has without good cause deprived the employee of his employment, in which case compensation is paid.
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
at 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, 253 Minn. 46 , 90 N. W. (2d) 915 ; and Bea
McLean Distributing Co. v. Brewery & Beverage Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Local No. 993 94 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1959
McLean Distributing Co. v. Brewery & Beverage Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Local No. 993 94 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1959
Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp. 254 Minn. 93 , 93 N. W. (2d) 815 .