Cited by

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

479 citing documents.

Rachel Royer, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Ctr., Inc., Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Lynn M. Langer, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (citations omitted).
Justin D. Shackelford, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Grp., d 328, 332 (Minn. App. 2009) (quoting Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., ); see also Wichmann v. Travalia & U.S. Directives, Inc., d 23, 29 (Minn. App. 2007) (remanding “[b]ecause the ULJ did not make findings addressing credibility and the ULJ’s finding of employment misconduct relies on a credibility assessment”).
Nathan A. Rinne, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Whether the 5 employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (citation omitted).
Edwin A. Mathieu, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Michael P. Larson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
5 DECISION Larson challenges the ULJ’s benefits-eligibility decision, arguing that he did not commit employment misconduct by refusing to comply with his employer’s COVID-19 policy.1 “Whether an employee committed employment misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
David Jacobs, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Yaohua Sun, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Whether the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Cleo K. Clemmer, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (providing that this court defers to credibility decisions by the ULJ).
Brandon L. Siems, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“We view the ULJ ’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision, giving deference to the credibility determinations made by the ULJ .” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (citation omitted) .
Andrew D. Forsgren, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Skarhus v. Davanni’ s Inc.
Shelbi Logue, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Whether an employee committed employment misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
In re the Matter of: Matthew Chandler Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (holding that this court defers to the ULJ’s credibility determinations on appella te review); (holding that appellate courts do not reweigh evidence on appeal).
Nathan M. Christenson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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).
Lora L. Aeliot, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Credibility determinations are the exclusive province of the ULJ and will not be disturbed on appeal.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., see also Vargas v. Nw.
Jeanine Slonim, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Rachel A. Grages, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Billie Edmonds, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
John Lo, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Kevin R. Ballman, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In doing so, we will not disturb the ULJ’s factual findings when the evidence s ubstantially sustains them.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc. , (citations omitted).
Cassandra Ferdig, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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).
Tyrone L. Hubbard, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Kenneth Kuller, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Eley v. Southshore Invs., Inc. , Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Timothy J. Rosenberger, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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).
Jerrod Feist, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In doing so, we will not disturb the ULJ’s factual findings when th e evidence substantially sustains them.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (citations omitted).
Melissa Ann Law, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Petracek, d at 930 (concluding that being in jail, without an attempt to reschedule the hearing or further explanation of the circumstances of the incarceration, did not constitute good cause for failing to participate); Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (affirming denial of reconsideration request when relator failed to participate in the evidentiary hearing because of work, did not assert that she had been denied leave from work to attend the hearing, and made no attempt to reschedule the hearing).1
Dinanden Doby, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Shane K. Harris, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Teresa Ward, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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).
Derrick D. Turner, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Dev., d 385, 387 (Minn. App. 2015) (quotations omitted); Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006).
Anthony Richmond, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In doing so, 5 we will not disturb the ULJ’s factual findings when the evidence s ubstantially sustains them.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc. , (citations omitted).
In the Matter of: Natasia Moose. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Clarence Walker, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
that are supported by substantial evidence.”) (syllabus by the court); Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (“Credibility determinations are the exclusive province of the ULJ and will not be disturbed on appeal.”).
Robert M. Hall, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Michael Olson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In doing so, we will not disturb the ULJ’s factual findings when th e evidence substantially sustains them.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc. , (citations omitted).
Dianne Strohmayer, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc, (affirming ULJ’s credibility determination when findings were supported by substantial evidence); Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc. , (deferring to ULJ’s determination that applicant’s testimony was not credible).
Michael Sirek, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In doing so, we will not disturb the ULJ’s factual findings when the evidence substan tially sustains them.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc. , d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006) (citations omitted).
In the Matter of: Raymond Semler. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(holding that appellate courts do not reweigh evidence on appeal); Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (holding that we defer to the ULJ’s credibilit y determinations on appellate review).
William Wilson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006).
Kenneth Salway, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Dantzler Thomas, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Whether the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Craig Hanson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The employee’s involvement in the act is a question of fact, Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., and factual findings are reviewed “in the light most favorable to the de cision and should not [be distur bed] as long as there is evidence in the record that reas onably tends to sustain them,” Stagg, d at 315 4 (quotation omitted).
Michael DePaul, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Richard Braegelmann, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Todd Leuze, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Whether an employee committed employment misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Myisha Jackson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We view the ULJ’s findings of fact in the light most favorable to its decision , and “will not disturb the ULJ’s factual findings when the evidence substantially sustains them.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Song Sibell, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Skarhus v. Davanni’s, Inc.
Randall Rahn, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We view the ULJ’s findings of fact in the light most favorable to its decision , and “will not disturb the ULJ’s factual findings when the evidence substantially sustains them.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., .
Charlene Hughes, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We view the ULJ’s findings of fact in the light most favorable to its decision , and “will not disturb the ULJ’ s factual findings when the evidence substantially sustains them.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Theodore Swantz, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Credibility determinations are the exclusive province of the ULJ and will not be disturbed on appeal.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.