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.

  • Snodgrass v. Oxford Properties, Inc. 354 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Her failure to cooperate with her employer indicates a willful disregard of her 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 * * Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
  • Cherveny v. 10,000 AUTO PARTS 353 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Cherveny v. 10,000 AUTO PARTS 353 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Relator’s dishonesty was a deliberate violation of “standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee.” Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 375
  • Psihos v. R & M Manufacturing 352 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Daniels v. Gnan Trucking 352 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Psihos v. R & M Manufacturing 352 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Tilseth v. Midwestern Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372
  • Daniels v. Gnan Trucking 352 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    or misconduct “connected with his work or for misconduct which interferes with and adversely affects his employment.” Relator’s conduct indicates a willful disregard of his 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 * * * >> Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-375 , (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
  • Wallace W. Carlson Co. v. Hasler 351 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Wallace W. Carlson Co. v. Hasler 351 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    1(2), and Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Company, 295 Minn. 372
  • Hines v. Sheraton Ritz Hotel 349 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Hines v. Sheraton Ritz Hotel 349 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    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.” 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , , 646 (1973).
  • Benson v. Iowa Beef Processors 348 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Green Tree Acceptance, Inc. v. Reed 348 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Benson v. Iowa Beef Processors 348 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 375 , *397 Group Health Plan
  • Green Tree Acceptance, Inc. v. Reed 348 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    ess or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interest or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer [[Image here]] Group Health Plan, (citing Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 375 , ).
  • Flannigan v. Meadow Lane Health Care Center 347 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Flannigan v. Meadow Lane Health Care Center 347 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Misconduct is conduct evincing a “willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests * * ⅜.” Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374
  • Dawson v. Northland Beverages, Inc. 347 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Dawson v. Northland Beverages, Inc. 347 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    The inference of theft drawn by the Commissioner’s representative is supported by the evidence and is a sufficient basis for a finding of misconduct as defined in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 375
  • Windsperger v. Broadway Liquor Outlet 346 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 1984
  • Sticha v. McDonald's No. 291 346 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1984
  • Colburn v. Pine Portage Madden Bros., Inc. 346 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1984
  • Colburn v. Pine Portage Madden Bros., Inc. 346 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1984
    We judicially amplified the meaning of misconduct under the provisions of subdivision 1(2) in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372 , adopting language used in Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
  • Sticha v. McDonald's No. 291 346 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1984
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , sets out the construction of “misconduct” which we have adopted from Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.
  • Windsperger v. Broadway Liquor Outlet 346 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 1984
    He determined that her action constituted misconduct under Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372 , and Feia v. State Cloud State College, 309.
  • Campbell v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. 345 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Campbell v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. 345 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    See Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372
  • Blau v. Masters Restaurant Associates, Inc. 345 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Worthington Tractor Salvage, Inc. v. Miller 346 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Blau v. Masters Restaurant Associates, Inc. 345 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    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, 375 , Group Health Plan
  • Worthington Tractor Salvage, Inc. v. Miller 346 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    this Court adopted the construction of the term “misconduct” that was set forth in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372
  • Evenson v. Omnetic's 344 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Evenson v. Omnetic's 344 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    The Minnesota Supreme Court defined misconduct in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 375 , stating: [T]he intended meaning of the term “misconduct” * * ⅜ is limited to conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness
  • Flahave v. Lang Meat Packing 343 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Hoemberg v. Watco Publishers, Inc. 343 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Flahave v. Lang Meat Packing 343 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    The Minnesota Supreme Court has consistently applied the definition of misconduct described in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 375 , to particular fact patterns to determine whether an employee was discharged for disqualifying misconduct.
  • Hoemberg v. Watco Publishers, Inc. 343 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 375
  • Smith v. American Indian Chemical Dependency Diversion Project 343 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Smith v. American Indian Chemical Dependency Diversion Project 343 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    On the oth *45 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, 375 , This court has applied the Tilseth standard in misconduct cases such as Group Health Plan
  • Edwards v. Yellow Freight Systems 342 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Edwards v. Yellow Freight Systems 342 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Misconduct was defined by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75 , : [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 negli
  • King v. Little Italy 341 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • McDonald v. PDQ 341 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • King v. Little Italy 341 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    In Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372 , the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted the following construction of the term ‘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 behavio
  • McDonald v. PDQ 341 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    On the other hand, mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, inability or incapacity, inadvertence 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, 375 , (emphasis added).
  • Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Lopez 341 N.W.2d 294 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
  • Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Lopez 341 N.W.2d 294 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
    On the other hand, mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertence 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, 375
  • Auger v. Gillette Co. 303 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1981
  • Auger v. Gillette Co. 303 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1981
    Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75
  • Thurik v. Department of Economic Security 288 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 1980