Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 193 N.W.2d 821.

44 citing documents.

Melrose Federation of Teachers, American Federation of Teachers Local 1284, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Kenneth Zepeda, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Minnesota Teamsters Public & Law Enforcement Employees Union, Local 320 v. County of St. Louis 726 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Minnesota Teamsters Public & Law Enforcement Employees Union, Local 320 v. County of St. Louis 726 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
“A liberal and broad construction of the term ‘grievance’1 as used in collective bargaining agreements should be given in the interest of encouraging the use of machinery which hás been set up for peaceful settlement of disputes.” Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152, 161
Deli v. University of Minnesota 511 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Deli v. University of Minnesota 511 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152, 162-63 , -28 (1972) (quoting State ex rel.
Caldwell v. City of Minneapolis 486 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Caldwell v. City of Minneapolis 486 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Bd., 282 Minn. 296, 299 , Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152, 162-63 , -28 (1972) (misconduct must be based on inadequate performance of duties); Hughes v. Department of Pub.
Matter of Dougherty 482 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Matter of Dougherty 482 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
However, we must independently review the agency's decisions concerning questions of law, Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152, 164 , and issues of statutory interpretation.
Myers v. City of Oakdale 461 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Myers v. City of Oakdale 461 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152, 162-63
City of Minneapolis v. Moe 450 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
City of Minneapolis v. Moe 450 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152 , the court stated: The cause must be one which specially relates to and affects the administration of the office, and must be restricted to something of a substantial nature directly affecting the rights and interests of the public.
City of Minneapolis v. Johnson 450 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
City of Minneapolis v. Johnson 450 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152, 162 , (quoting State ex rel.
Department of Human Services v. Muriel Humphrey Residences 436 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Department of Human Services v. Muriel Humphrey Residences 436 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152, 164
Pawelk v. Camden Township 415 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Pawelk v. Camden Township 415 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The incompetency or misconduct must be related to the employee’s job performance, Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152, 162-63 , and the employer must be found to have acted reasonably in discharging the *50 employee.
Bush v. City of St. Joseph 395 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bush v. City of St. Joseph 395 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152, 162
In Re the Petition of Halberg Construction & Supply, Inc. 385 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re the Petition of Halberg Construction & Supply, Inc. 385 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(citing Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152, 164 , ).
Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency v. Schrader 380 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency v. Schrader 380 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Misconduct has been defined as legal cause which “specially relates to and affects the administration of the office, * * * of a substantial nature directly affecting the rights and interests of the public.” Leininger, d at 726 (quoting Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152 , ).
Marshall County Central Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 441 363 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marshall County Central Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 441 363 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152 , the supreme court interpreted Minn.Stat.
AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Board 356 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1984
AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Board 356 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1984
See Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 *298 Minn. 152
Beaty v. Minnesota Board of Teaching 354 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Beaty v. Minnesota Board of Teaching 354 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152, 164
In Re Arbitration County of Cass & Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. 353 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re Arbitration County of Cass & Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. 353 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152 , the Minnesota Supreme Court compared the meaning of the term “just cause” as used in one statute and the term “misconduct” as used in the VPA: Under the applicable statutes the respondents could only be discharged for just cause or for misconduct.
Township of Thomastown v. City of Staples 323 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1982
Township of Thomastown v. City of Staples 323 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1982
Accord, Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152
Finch v. Wemlinger 310 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 1981
Finch v. Wemlinger 310 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 1981
The only other case in which we have dealt with this provision is Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152
Leininger v. City of Bloomington 299 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1980
Leininger v. City of Bloomington 299 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1980
Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152
Van Hoof v. City of Burnsville 275 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 1979
Van Hoof v. City of Burnsville 275 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 1979
See Ekstedt v. New Hope, 292 Minn. 152 , and Hagen v. State Civil Service Board, 282 Minn. 296
Dakota County Abstract Co. v. Richardson 252 N.W.2d 124 Minn. 1977
Dakota County Abstract Co. v. Richardson 252 N.W.2d 124 Minn. 1977
Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 292 Minn. 152

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by