Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Olson v. Starkey, 107 N.W.2d 386.

25 citing documents.

Halvorson v. County of Anoka 780 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Halvorson v. County of Anoka 780 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
1 (2008); Olson v. Starkey, 259 Minn. 364, 368
Lamah v. Doherty Employment Group, Inc. 737 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Lamah v. Doherty Employment Group, Inc. 737 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
This approach is also rooted in the historic direction of a departmental regulation that defined “full time” in relation to “the number of hours in the calendar week during which individuals engaged in the same or similar occupations in the same establishment usually or customarily perform such services.” Olson v. Starkey, 259 Minn. 364, 369 , (quoting 1945 regulation of Department of Employment Security).
Decker v. City Pages, Inc. 540 N.W.2d 544 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Decker v. City Pages, Inc. 540 N.W.2d 544 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
The Minnesota Economic Security Law “is intended to benefit persons who are unemployed through no fault of their own and who are genuinely attached to the labor market.” Olson v. Starkey, 259 Minn. 364, 371
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
While it is generally impossible to draw a clear line between availability and unavailability, this court has repeatedly said that the act is intended to benefit people who are unemployed through no fault of their own and who are “genuinely attached to the labor market.” Olson v. Starkey, 259 Minn. 364, 371
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
In other contexts, the court has construed the phrase in the following manner: A claimant must be “accessible or attainable for work when suitable work is offered at such hours as are customary in the type of employment to which he is suited.” He must be “genuinely attached to the labor market.” Olson v. Starkey, 259 Minn. 364, 371
Anderson v. Moberg Rodlund Sheet Metal Co. 316 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1982
Anderson v. Moberg Rodlund Sheet Metal Co. 316 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1982
This court has recognized that hearings must be “conducted in accordance with the provisions of the employment security laws and regulations.” Olson v. Starkey, 259 Minn. 364, 374
Christensen v. Fiberite Corp. 269 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1978
Monson v. Minnesota Department of Employment Services 262 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1978
Monson v. Minnesota Department of Employment Services 262 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1978
Olson v. Starkey, 259 Minn. 364 , Semanko v. Dept. of Employment Services, Minn.
Goodman v. MINN. DEPT. OF EMP. SERV. 255 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1977
Goodman v. MINN. DEPT. OF EMP. SERV. 255 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1977
Olson v. Starkey, 259 Minn. 364, 371
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
provided further that benefits after December 31, 1971, shall not be denied by application of this clause to an individual who is in training with the approval of the commissioner.” To be “available for work” claimant must be “* * * accessible or attainable for work when suitable work is offered at such hours as are customary in the type of employment to which he is suited * * Olson v. Starkey, 259 Minn. 364, 371
Hansen v. Continental Can Company 221 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 1974
Hansen v. Continental Can Company 221 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 1974
A claimant must be “accessible or attainable for work when suitable work is offered at such hours as are customary in the type of employment to which he is suited.” He must be “genuinely attached to the labor market.” Olson v. Starkey, 259 Minn. 364, 371
Kantor v. Honeywell, Inc. 175 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1970
Kantor v. Honeywell, Inc. 175 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1970
Olson v. Starkey, 259 Minn. 364 , 107 N. W. (2d) 386 .
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
Vicker v. Starkey, 265 Minn. 464 , 122 N. W. (2d) 169 , 97 A. L. R. (2d) 745; Johnson v. Wilson & Co. 266 Minn. 500 , 124 N. W. (2d) 496 ; Olson v. Starkey, 259 Minn. 364 , 107 N. W. (2d) 386 .