DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

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.

  • Engler v. Marshall Turkey Plant 409 N.W.2d 570 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.
  • Skic v. Beverage Transportation 407 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Skic v. Beverage Transportation 407 N.W.2d 488 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 , (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
  • Cavalier v. C. Machine Co. 404 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Cavalier v. C. Machine Co. 404 N.W.2d 391 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
  • Christianson v. Geo. A. Hormel & Co. 404 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Christianson v. Geo. A. Hormel & Co. 404 N.W.2d 334 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
  • Minnesota Boxed Meats, Inc. v. Zadworny 404 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Minnesota Boxed Meats, Inc. v. Zadworny 404 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
  • Monyoro v. Marriott Corp. 403 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Monyoro v. Marriott Corp. 403 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
  • Heitman v. Cronstroms Manufacturing, Inc. 401 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Nelson v. Hartz Truckline 401 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Heitman v. Cronstroms Manufacturing, Inc. 401 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
  • Nelson v. Hartz Truckline 401 N.W.2d 436 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 , (emphasis supplied).
  • Walseth v. L.B. Hartz Wholesale 399 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Walseth v. L.B. Hartz Wholesale 399 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
  • Turnquist v. Amoco Oil Co. 397 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Turnquist v. Amoco Oil Co. 397 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    The following definition of “misconduct” is provided by Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372 , : [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 carelessness or negligence
  • Barstow v. Honeywell, Inc. 396 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Barstow v. Honeywell, Inc. 396 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 375
  • Ray N. Welter Heating Co. v. Larson 394 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Ray N. Welter Heating Co. v. Larson 394 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    “[M]ere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct [or] failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity * * * [fe] not to be deemed ‘misconduct.’” Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
  • Herreid v. Moore Data Management Services 392 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Herreid v. Moore Data Management Services 392 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Given this finding, Herreid’s refusal to return to the office to discuss the problem evidences an “intentional and substantial disregard for his employer’s interests” and constitutes misconduct under Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , , 646 (1973).
  • Mark W. Peterson Law Offices v. Murphey 392 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Mark W. Peterson Law Offices v. Murphey 392 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
  • Sivertson v. Sims Security, Inc. 390 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Torgerson v. Goodwill Industries, Inc. 391 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Torgerson v. Goodwill Industries, Inc. 391 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    *38 The Commissioner’s decision clearly falls within the definition of misconduct set forth in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 375
  • Sivertson v. Sims Security, Inc. 390 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Harm is not necessary for a determination of misconduct, which is defined in part as conduct which evidences an “intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests.” Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
  • Eddins v. Chippewa Springs Corp. 388 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Followed Eddins v. Chippewa Springs Corp. 388 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    ANALYSIS The Commissioner’s representative concluded that Eddins’ behavior constituted misconduct under Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372
  • Enz v. Holiday Inn North 388 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Enz v. Holiday Inn North 388 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    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 Company, 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
  • Kemp v. U.S. Department of Agriculture 385 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Kemp v. U.S. Department of Agriculture 385 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Til seth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
  • Montgomery v. F & M Marquette National Bank 384 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Montgomery v. F & M Marquette National Bank 384 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-5
  • Gilkeson v. INDUSTRIAL PARTS & SERVICE, INC. 383 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Norman v. Rosemount, Inc. 383 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Gilkeson v. INDUSTRIAL PARTS & SERVICE, INC. 383 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    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’ ⅜ * Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
  • Norman v. Rosemount, Inc. 383 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    The definition of “misconduct” is found in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372
  • Gerr v. Target-Fridley 382 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Gerr v. Target-Fridley 382 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    The Minnesota Supreme Court defined the term “misconduct” in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372 , : [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 *233 deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or neglige
  • Dean v. Allied Aviation Fueling Co. 381 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Deering v. Unitog Rental Services 381 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Dean v. Allied Aviation Fueling Co. 381 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
  • Deering v. Unitog Rental Services 381 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    In Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372 , the Minnesota Supreme Court explained the meaning of the term “misconduct”: [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 employ
  • McKee v. Cub Foods, Inc. 380 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1986