Cited by

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

483 citing documents.

Daniel McGrane (A22-1726) v. Airgas USA, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development, In the Matter of: Daniel … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A reviewing court accords deference to a ULJ’s decision not to hold an additional hearing and will reverse that decision only for an abuse of discretion.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Gregory M. Reinert v. Fairview Health Services, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Whether the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact ,” but “whether the act committed by the employee constitutes employment misconduct is a question of law .” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., .
Husen A. Guffe v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Ahmad Daniel v. Honeywell International, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2023
misconduct, arguing that Honeywell’s COVID- 19 policy requiring him to get and submit weekly COVID- 19 tests pursuant to his religious exemption from receiving the COVID- 19 vaccine amounted to “unlawful stipulations” and “required [him] to defy [his] religious faith.” 4 “Whether an employee committed employment misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Rachel Royer v. Inventiv Health, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Ctr., Inc., Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Lynn M. Langer v. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (citations omitted).
Justin D. Shackelford v. University of Minnesota, Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. Concordia University, St. Paul, Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. University of St. Thomas, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Michael P. Larson v. Minnesota State College Southeast - Winona, Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Yaohua Sun v. Pepperl & Fuchs, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Whether the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Cleo K. Clemmer v. The Cook Hospital, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (providing that this court defers to credibility decisions by the ULJ).
Brandon L. Siems v. Courtesy Corporation - McDonald’s, Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. University of Minnesota Physicians Corp., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Skarhus v. Davanni’ s Inc.
Shelbi Logue v. Olympus America, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. RIHM Motor Company, Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. Riverway Learning Community, Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Rachel A. Grages v. We Care Day Care, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Billie Edmonds v. Intermediate School District #917, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
John Lo v. Pye-Barker Fire & Safety LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Kevin R. Ballman v. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. Northwestern Minnesota Juvenile Center, Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. Preferred Concrete Construction, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Kenneth Kuller v. Supervalu, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Eley v. Southshore Invs., Inc. , Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Timothy J. Rosenberger v. South-Town, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. City of Plymouth, Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. Pioneer Metal Finishing, Department of Employment and Economic Development 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
Shane K. Harris v. Westlund Excavating, LLC., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Dinanden Doby v. Per Mar Security Services, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Teresa Ward v. Delta Airlines, Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. MG McGrath, Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. Vanden Hoak Cleaning, Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. Knutson Counseling & Seminars, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. Atrium Hospitality LP, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Michael Olson v. Schneiderman’s Furniture Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. A&E Care Services, Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. Northwest Respiratory Services, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. Northern Pines Mental Health Center Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006).
Kenneth Salway v. Tandem Products, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Dantzler Thomas v. Thermotech LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Whether the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Craig Hanson v. Autism Opportunities Foundation, Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. Department of Veterans Affairs/Veterans Health Administration, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Richard Braegelmann v. Hansen Flooring Gallery, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Todd Leuze v. Minnesota Valley Alfalfa Producers, Department of Employment and Economic Development 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 v. Senior Care Solutions, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development 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.