Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Claim of Tilseth, 204 N.W.2d 644.

271 citing documents.

Justin D. Shackelford, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or the employee’s duties and obligations.” -47 (Minn. 1973) (quoting Boynton Cab.
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
The materiality standard has its origins in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75, a case we decided before the Legislature adopted a statutory definition of “employment misconduct.” Act of Apr.
Cathy Justice, Relator v. Glacial Ridge Hospital, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Cathy Justice, Relator v. Glacial Ridge Hospital, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Relator also cites a previous common-law definition of employment misconduct as requiring “wilful,” “wanton,” or “deliberate” behavior, as stated in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374–75
Cynthia Stephen, Relator v. Pro Pilots, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Cynthia Stephen, Relator v. Pro Pilots, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
7 Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75, (quotation omitted), superseded by statute Minn. Stat. § 268.09, subd.
Potter v. Northern Empire Pizza, Inc. 805 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Potter v. Northern Empire Pizza, Inc. 805 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Courts included a single-incident exception to employment misconduct, Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , -46 (1973), which later developed into a so-called “hotheaded incident” exception, Windsperger, d at 145 .
Santillana v. Central Minnesota Council on Aging 791 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Santillana v. Central Minnesota Council on Aging 791 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
at 427 (quoting Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , ).
Lawrence v. Ratzlaff Motor Express Inc. 785 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Lawrence v. Ratzlaff Motor Express Inc. 785 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Both parties discuss precedent decided under the definition of misconduct found in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372 , which previously supplemented the former statutory definition of misconduct.
Hanson v. Crestliner Inc. 772 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Hanson v. Crestliner Inc. 772 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
6(e) (2008) (defining misconduct and stating that no other definition applies); In re Claim of Tilseth, 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , (defining misconduct).
Bray v. Dogs & Cats Ltd. (1997) 679 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Bray v. Dogs & Cats Ltd. (1997) 679 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
6); -40 (Minn.App.1999) (discussing 1997 codification of misconduct definition found in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372 , ), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Houston v. International Data Transfer Corp. 645 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
Houston v. International Data Transfer Corp. 645 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
Houston then appealed to the court of appeals, arguing that she did not commit misconduct, as defined in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp. 644 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2002
Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp. 644 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2002
5 Finally, relying on Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , Schmidgall argues her failure to make immediate reports of injury was not employment misconduct because she did not have the requisite culpability.
Isse v. Alamo Rent-A-Car 590 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Isse v. Alamo Rent-A-Car 590 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Hamilton relies on a contemporaneously filed decision, which quoted the definition of misconduct adopted in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372
Scheunemann v. Radisson South Hotel 562 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Scheunemann v. Radisson South Hotel 562 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 375 , -46 (1973) (Commissioner’s finding of fact on issue whether employee had insulted customer was supported by the evidence); Reddmann v. Kokesck Trucking, Inc., (reviewing Commissioner’s findings regarding employee’s actions).
Neve v. Austin Daily Herald 552 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Cook v. Playworks 541 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Cook v. Playworks 541 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
The definition of “misconduct” specifically excludes "mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadverten-cies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances * * Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 375 , (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
Fujan v. RUFFRIDGE-JOHNSON EQUIPMENT 535 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Fujan v. RUFFRIDGE-JOHNSON EQUIPMENT 535 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed “misconduct.” Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
Loewen v. Lakeland Mental Health Center, Inc. 532 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Loewen v. Lakeland Mental Health Center, Inc. 532 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
Dachel v. Ortho Met, Inc. 528 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Dachel v. Ortho Met, Inc. 528 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
The definition of “misconduct” specifically excludes “mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances.” Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 375 , (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp. 526 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1995
Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp. 526 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1995
Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372
Denny v. Minneapolis American Indian Center 524 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Denny v. Minneapolis American Indian Center 524 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374 , the supreme court defined misconduct as “conduct evincing * ⅜ * wilful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests.” (Citations omitted.)
Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp. 520 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp. 520 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
Prickett v. Circuit Science, Inc. 518 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 1994
We adopted a widely accepted definition of the term “misconduct” in In re Claim of Tilseth, 295 Minn. 872 , 374-75, , 646 (1978): The intended meaning of the term ‘misconduct’ * * * is limited to conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negli
Peksa v. Fairview-Southdale Hosp. 512 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Shell v. Host International (Corp.) 513 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Peksa v. Fairview-Southdale Hosp. 512 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
Shell v. Host International (Corp.) 513 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
Nieszner v. Minnesota Department of Jobs & Training 499 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Nieszner v. Minnesota Department of Jobs & Training 499 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
Soussi v. Blue & White Service Corp. 498 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Soussi v. Blue & White Service Corp. 498 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
Peterson v. Fred Vogt & Co. 495 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1993