Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Semanko v. Department of Employment Services, 244 N.W.2d 663.

67 citing documents.

Jordan L. Oslund v. The Paint Genie, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In Semanko v. Department of Employment Services, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected Semanko’s claim that he had good cause for failing to file his appeal within the statutory deadline, holding that the statutory deadline was “absolute and unambiguous.” -66 (Minn. 1976).
Patricia Lemke v. ABLE, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Serv., (stating that “[t]he question of availability for work must be determined anew on the facts of each case”).
In the Matter of: Benita White Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of: Benita White Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Servs., McNeilly, d at 711-12.
Theresa Stang v. Ind. School District #047, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Servs., (availability); McNeilly, d at 711-12 (actively seeking).
In the Matter of: Richard A. Miezwa Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Serv., (stating that “question 3 of availability for work must be determined anew on the facts of each case”).
Charles Williams v. Schmitty & Sons School Buses, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Serv., (stating that “the question of availability for work must be determined anew on the facts of each case”).
Derrick D. Turner v. MG McGrath, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Peggy J. Green v. Hazelden Foundation, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Typically, the statutory time period “is absolute and unambiguous,” Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., and “there are no statutory provisions for extensions or exce ptions to the appeal period,” Kennedy v. Am.
Matthew Sawatzky v. Harris Rochester, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
and generally “there are no statutory provisions for extensions or exceptions to the appeal period,” Kennedy v. Am.
In the Matter of: Alison Wettig Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs.
In the Matter of: Justin Bennek Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Serv.
Chue Her v. FGT Cabinetry LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The statutory time period “is absolute and unambiguous,” Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., and “there are no statutory provisions for extensi ons or exceptions to the appeal period,” Kennedy v. Am.
Matthew J. Miller v. Hollenback & Nelson, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See, e.g., Semanko v. Department of Emp’t Servs., -40 (Minn. App. 2006)
In the Matter of: Diana Murack Minn. Ct. App. 2021
2(f)); see also Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., (characterizing as “absolute and unambiguous” time period to challenge initial determination under predecessor statute).
Nancy Peterson v. Electrolux Home Products Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The statutory time period “is absolute and unambiguous,” Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., d 663, 666 (Minn. 1976), and “there are no statutory provisions for extensions or exceptions to the appeal period,” Kennedy v. Am.
Don Modeen v. Meribel Enterprises LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Jordan Carroll v. Minnesota Apartments, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 4 Rowe, d at 195–96.
A18-2149 In the Matter of: Dennis Arel Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs.
Don Modeen v. Meribel Enterprises, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs.
Richard Thurmer v. Diff’s Trucking, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs.
Cornelius Williams v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The law on timeliness of an appeal is “absolute and unambiguous.” Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 309 Minn. 425, 428-30, see Kennedy v. Am.
Renee Rodgers v. Children’s Dental Services, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Renee Rodgers v. Children’s Dental Services, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The statutory time limit for appeal is “absolute and unambiguous.” Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 309 Minn. 425, 430
Amy L. Morris v. Trudeau Foods LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Amy L. Morris v. Trudeau Foods LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The statutory time limitation is “absolute and unambiguous.” Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 309 Minn. 425, 430
Hountcheme Y.A. Gbeyetin v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hountcheme Y.A. Gbeyetin v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 309 Minn. 425, 428
Michelle Davidsavor v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michelle Davidsavor v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 309 Minn. 425, 428, d 663, 665 (1976).
Maryanne L. Marcellais v. Prairie Harvest Mental Health, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Maryanne L. Marcellais v. Prairie Harvest Mental Health, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 309 Minn. 425, 428, d 663, 665 (1976).
Jonathan C. Barnett v. Soligent Distribution LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jonathan C. Barnett v. Soligent Distribution LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This statutory time period is “absolute and unambiguous.” Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 309 Minn. 425, 430
Keith Travis v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Keith Travis v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 309 Minn. 425, 428
Sherrie M. Aubin v. Family Dollar, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sherrie M. Aubin v. Family Dollar, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
This statutory time limitation is “absolute and unambiguous.” Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 309 Minn. 425, 430
Kennedy v. American Paper Recycling Corp. 714 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Kennedy v. American Paper Recycling Corp. 714 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Semanko v. Dep’t of Employment Servs., 309 Minn. 425, 429-30 , (seven calendar days); Jackson v. Minn. Dep’t of Manpower Servs., 296 Minn. 500 , *740 501, (same).
Rowe v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 704 N.W.2d 191 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Rowe v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 704 N.W.2d 191 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Semanko v. Dep’t of Employment Servs., 309 Minn. 425, 430 , see also King v. Univ.
Waletich Corp. v. Commissioner of Employment & Economic Development 682 N.W.2d 663 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Waletich Corp. v. Commissioner of Employment & Economic Development 682 N.W.2d 663 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the statutory time for appeal is “absolute and unambiguous.” Semanko v. Dep’t of Employment Servs., 309 Minn. 425, 430
Lolling v. Midwest Patrol 545 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1996
Lolling v. Midwest Patrol 545 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1996
An appellate court reviews “the findings of the commissioner or the commissioner’s representative, not those of the referee, even though those findings might involve witness credibility.” (citing Semanko v. Department of Employment Servs., 309 Minn. 425, 428 , ).
Decker v. City Pages, Inc. 540 N.W.2d 544 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Decker v. City Pages, Inc. 540 N.W.2d 544 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(citing Semanko v. Department of Employment Servs., 309 Minn. 425, 428 , ).
Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp. 526 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1995
Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp. 526 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1995
The court of appeals, citing Semanko v. Department of Employment Servs., 309 Minn. 425, 428 , acknowledged that its task on appeal is to review the findings of the commissioner or the commissioner’s representative, not those of the referee, even though those findings might involve witness credibility.