DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

271 citing documents.

  • Peterson v. Fred Vogt & Co. 495 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , (citing Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
  • Wilson v. Comfort Bus Co., Inc. 491 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Wilson v. Comfort Bus Co., Inc. 491 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inad-vertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good-faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed ‘misconduct.’ *911 Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , (citing Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
  • Hayes v. Wrico Stamping Griffiths Corp. 490 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Hayes v. Wrico Stamping Griffiths Corp. 490 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    In Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , the supreme court adopted the following definition of misconduct: [T]he 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
  • Hansen v. C.W. Mears, Inc. 486 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Hansen v. C.W. Mears, Inc. 486 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
  • Markel v. City of Circle Pines 479 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1992
  • Markel v. City of Circle Pines 479 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1992
    This court further defined misconduct in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372 , where we said: “[T]he intended meaning of the term ‘misconduct’ * * * is limited to conduct evincing such wilful 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 carelessne
  • Markel v. City of Circle Pines 465 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Markel v. City of Circle Pines 465 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inad-vertencies 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
  • McCourtney v. Imprimis Technology, Inc. 465 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • McCourtney v. Imprimis Technology, Inc. 465 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    In Re Claim of Tilseth, 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , (citation omitted).
  • Meehan v. Lull Corp. 466 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Meehan v. Lull Corp. 466 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    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.” *17 Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , (quoting Boynton Cab.
  • Riley v. Transport Corp. of America, Inc. 462 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Riley v. Transport Corp. of America, Inc. 462 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
  • Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Inc. 448 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1989
  • Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Inc. 448 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1989
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
  • Nelson v. Star Tribune 445 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Nelson v. Star Tribune 445 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    In Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372 , the Minnesota Supreme Court defined “misconduct” as follows: * * * [T]he intended meaning of the term “misconduct” * * * is limited to conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has th
  • Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Inc. 438 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Inc. 438 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
  • Eyler v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. 427 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Eyler v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. 427 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
  • Cherry v. American National Insurance Co. 426 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Cherry v. American National Insurance Co. 426 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as a 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.” In re Claim of Tilseth, 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
  • Gradine v. College of St. Scholastica 426 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Gradine v. College of St. Scholastica 426 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    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.
  • Reed v. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Golden Valley, District 5 422 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Reed v. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Golden Valley, District 5 422 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    * * * Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
  • Anderson v. Honeywell, Inc. 421 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Anderson v. Honeywell, Inc. 421 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    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.
  • McGowan v. Executive Express Transportation Enterprises, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1988
  • McGowan v. Executive Express Transportation Enterprises, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1988
    The dissent concluded that relator’s conduct did not establish the culpability necessary for disqualification under either the statute or Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372
  • Thurner v. Philip Clinic, Ltd. 413 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Thurner v. Philip Clinic, Ltd. 413 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inad-vertencies 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
  • Independent School District No. 709 v. Hansen 412 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • McCoy v. Spicer Off-Highway Axle Division 412 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • McCoy v. Spicer Off-Highway Axle Division 412 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    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.
  • Independent School District No. 709 v. Hansen 412 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    In Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Company, 295 Minn. 372 , the Minnesota Supreme Court determined that the repeated consumption of alcohol by a truck driver during working hours constituted misconduct, defining “misconduct” as follows: [T]he intended meaning of the term “misconduct” * * * is limited to conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer’s
  • McGowan v. Executive Express Transportation Enterprises, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • McGowan v. Executive Express Transportation Enterprises, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    ANALYSIS “Misconduct” for unemployment compensation purposes has been defined as follows: Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
  • Huling v. Stemm Transfer & Storage, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 246 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Bibeau v. Resistance Technology, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Huling v. Stemm Transfer & Storage, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 246 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
  • Bibeau v. Resistance Technology, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inad-vertencies 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
  • Christenson v. City of Albert Lea 409 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Engler v. Marshall Turkey Plant 409 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Christenson v. City of Albert Lea 409 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    On the oth *566 er hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inad-vertencies 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.