Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hendrickson v. Northfield Cleaners, 295 N.W.2d 384.

45 citing documents.

Peksa v. Fairview-Southdale Hosp. 512 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Peksa v. Fairview-Southdale Hosp. 512 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
§ 268.03 (unemployment reserves are to be used for the benefit of persons unemployed through no fault of their own); (to effectuate public policy, unemployment compensation statute must be liberally construed and its disqualification provisions narrowly construed).
Valenty v. Medical Concepts Development, Inc. 503 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1993
Valenty v. Medical Concepts Development, Inc. 503 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1993
Maintenance Co., Hen- *135
Miller v. International Express Corp. 495 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Miller v. International Express Corp. 495 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
McCourtney v. Imprimis Technology, Inc.
Wood v. Menard, Inc. 490 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Wood v. Menard, Inc. 490 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Evenson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 489 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Evenson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 489 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
836, 839 (D.Minn.1963) (disability insurance benefits are remedial and statute must be construed liberally); (unemployment compensation statutes are remedial in nature and must be liberally construed).
Polley v. Gopher Bearing Co. 478 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Polley v. Gopher Bearing Co. 478 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
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
The unemployment compensation statutes are “humanitarian in nature and are liberally construed.” Group Health Plan, ().
Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Inc. 438 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Geo. A. Hormel & Co. v. Asper 428 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1988
Geo. A. Hormel & Co. v. Asper 428 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1988
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
Heitman v. Cronstroms Manufacturing, Inc. 401 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Heitman v. Cronstroms Manufacturing, Inc. 401 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bestler v. Travel Co. of Minnesota 398 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Distinguished Bestler v. Travel Co. of Minnesota 398 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kuether v. Personnel Pool of Minnesota 394 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kuether v. Personnel Pool of Minnesota 394 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Henry v. Dolphin Temporary Help Services 386 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Henry v. Dolphin Temporary Help Services 386 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Applying this definition, reversed a determination by the Commissioner’s representative, concluding that permanent employment at a laundry was not suitable for a prior employee who was one quarter away from receiving a degree as a registered nurse *281 and who had previously taken the job in the laundry as temporary summer work on
Sticka v. Holiday Village South 348 N.W.2d 761 Minn. 1984
Sticka v. Holiday Village South 348 N.W.2d 761 Minn. 1984
Mastley v. Commissioner of Economic Security 347 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Mastley v. Commissioner of Economic Security 347 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Suitable work has been defined as “such work as the employee customarily performs or such as he is reasonably fitted to perform by past experience or train-ing_” Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company, 240 Minn. 449, 457
Hollar v. Richard Manufacturing Co. 346 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Preiss v. Commissioner of Economic Security 347 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Preiss v. Commissioner of Economic Security 347 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Suitable work has been defined by the Minnesota Supreme Court as “such work as the employee customarily performs or such as he is reasonably fitted to perform by past experience or training....” Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company, 240 Minn. 449, 457
Hollar v. Richard Manufacturing Co. 346 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marty v. Digital Equipment Corp. 345 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 1984
Marty v. Digital Equipment Corp. 345 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 1984
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
Mortel v. IND. SCH. DIST. NO. 831, FOREST LAKE 334 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1983
Mortel v. IND. SCH. DIST. NO. 831, FOREST LAKE 334 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1983
Sajevic v. Greenbrier Home, Inc., 298 Minn. 574
RESERVE MIN. CO., BABBITT DIV. v. Gorecki 316 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 1982
RESERVE MIN. CO., BABBITT DIV. v. Gorecki 316 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 1982
we enumerated factors to be considered in determining the suitability of offers of reemployment, each case must be examined within the context of the unique facts presented to determine whether the refusal was for good cause.
Smith v. Employers' Overload Co. 314 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 1981
Smith v. Employers' Overload Co. 314 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 1981
§ 268.03 (1980) that unem *222 ployment reserves be used “for the benefit of persons unemployed through no fault of their own.” See, Sajevic v. Greenbrier Home, Inc., 298 Minn. 574