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.

  • Trebelhorn v. Minneapolis Cable Systems, Inc. 380 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • McKee v. Cub Foods, Inc. 380 N.W.2d 233 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’ * * *.” Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
  • Trebelhorn v. Minneapolis Cable Systems, Inc. 380 N.W.2d 237 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 iso *239 lated 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.
  • Harringer v. AA Portable Truck & Trailer Repair, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Ruzynski v. Cub Foods, Inc. 378 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Ruzynski v. Cub Foods, Inc. 378 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    * * * * ⅝ * Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
  • Harringer v. AA Portable Truck & Trailer Repair, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
  • Woodward v. Interstate Office Systems 379 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Holton v. Gnan Trucking, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Woodward v. Interstate Office Systems 379 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 375 , d.
  • Holton v. Gnan Trucking, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    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.
  • McLean v. Plastics, Inc. 378 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • McLean v. Plastics, Inc. 378 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    The Minnesota Supreme Court defined the term “misconduct” in Tilseth v. Midwest Lum- per 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
  • Abbey v. Contract Programming Specialists, Inc. 377 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Abbey v. Contract Programming Specialists, Inc. 377 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    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.” Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
  • Norman v. Campbell-Logan Bindery, Inc. 376 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Norman v. Campbell-Logan Bindery, Inc. 376 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374, 375 , (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
  • Oman v. Daig Corp. 375 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Oman v. Daig Corp. 375 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as a result of inability or incapacity, inadver-tencies 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.
  • Duc Van Luu v. Carley Foundry Co. 374 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Duc Van Luu v. Carley Foundry Co. 374 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    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 deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence
  • Coleman v. Repro Printing, Inc. 374 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Coleman v. Repro Printing, Inc. 374 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as a result of inability or incapacity, inadver-tencies 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.
  • Sandstrom v. Douglas MacHine Corp. 372 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Sandstrom v. Douglas MacHine Corp. 372 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    A definition of misconduct was enunciated by the supreme court in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372 , : The 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 an employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of
  • St. Williams Nursing Home v. Koep 369 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • St. Williams Nursing Home v. Koep 369 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    In affirming the decision of the referee, the Commissioner stated: In the instant case the Referee reasonably found from the evidence that the claimant’s absenteeism did not show the culpability required to come within the definition of misconduct [as stated in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372 , ]
  • Whorton v. Department of Health & Human Services 368 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Whorton v. Department of Health & Human Services 368 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    In Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Company, 2 95 Minn. 372 , the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted the following definition of misconduct: The 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 t
  • Dewey v. Tom Thumb Food Market 367 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Dewey v. Tom Thumb Food Market 367 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Such behavior showed a reckless indifference to the interests of his employer and is misconduct as defined in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Company, 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
  • Drellack v. Inter-County Community Council, Inc. 366 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Drellack v. Inter-County Community Council, Inc. 366 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 375
  • Krantz v. Larco Division 363 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Krantz v. Larco Division 363 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Such deliberate conduct is sufficient to rise to the level of misconduct as defined in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Company, 295 Minn. 372
  • Fresonke v. St. Mary's Hospital 363 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Fresonke v. St. Mary's Hospital 363 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
  • Pitzel v. Packaged Furniture & Carpet 362 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Pitzel v. Packaged Furniture & Carpet 362 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Pitzel’s *358 conduct evinces a willful or wanton disregard of the employer’s interest as defined in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372
  • Jones v. Rosemount, Inc. 361 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc. 361 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc. 361 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 375
  • Jones v. Rosemount, Inc. 361 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    ANALYSIS The definition of misconduct set forth in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372 , governs this action.
  • Mankato Lutheran Home v. Miller 358 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Mankato Lutheran Home v. Miller 358 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
  • Neihart v. Hayes Contractors, Inc. 357 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Neihart v. Hayes Contractors, Inc. 357 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    1(2) (Supp.1983); Tilseth v. Midwest *131 Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372
  • Poepke v. Downtown Standard 356 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Poepke v. Downtown Standard 356 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    The Commissioner found that failure to come to work on Saturday knowing that a discharge would result convincingly shows that claimant lacked any concern for his job and was misconduct as defined in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372
  • Snodgrass v. Oxford Properties, Inc. 354 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 1984