Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Skarhus v. Davanni's Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340.

479 citing documents.

Nelson v. Levy 796 N.W.2d 336 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Vasseei v. Schmitty & Sons School Buses Inc. 793 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Vasseei v. Schmitty & Sons School Buses Inc. 793 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Kelly v. Ambassador Press, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Kelly v. Ambassador Press, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Brisson v. City of Hewitt 789 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Brisson v. City of Hewitt 789 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“Whether the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Lawrence v. Ratzlaff Motor Express Inc. 785 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Lawrence v. Ratzlaff Motor Express Inc. 785 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“Whether an employee committed employment misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., ().
St. Croix Sensory Inc. v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 785 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
St. Croix Sensory Inc. v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 785 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
PETRACEK v. University of Minnesota 780 N.W.2d 927 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
PETRACEK v. University of Minnesota 780 N.W.2d 927 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
BANGTSON v. Allina Medical Group 766 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
BANGTSON v. Allina Medical Group 766 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“We view the ULJ’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision, giving deference to the credibility determinations made by the UL J. In doing so, we will not disturb the ULJ’s factual findings when the evidence substantially sustains them.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (citations omitted).
Marn v. Fairview Pharmacy Services LLC 756 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marn v. Fairview Pharmacy Services LLC 756 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“Whether the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Peterson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 753 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Peterson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 753 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Abdi v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 749 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Abdi v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 749 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Frank v. Heartland Automotive Services, Inc. 743 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Frank v. Heartland Automotive Services, Inc. 743 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Lamah v. Doherty Employment Group, Inc. 737 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Lamah v. Doherty Employment Group, Inc. 737 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Services, Inc. 726 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Services, Inc. 726 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Id.; Skarhus v. Davanni’s, Inc.
Pierce v. DIMA CORP.(1992) 721 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Pierce v. DIMA CORP.(1992) 721 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (finding that an employee’s theft from employer of food valued at less than four dollars had a significant adverse impact on the employer and did not fall within the single-incident exception in Minn.Stat.