DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

479 citing documents.

  • Daniel Larson, 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. , .
  • Jennifer S. Bild, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    See Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc. , (concluding that credibility determinations are the “exclusive province of the ULJ and will not be disturbed on appeal”); Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd.
  • Connie J. Meier, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    “Whether the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s, Inc.
  • Bruce F. Filson DDS PA, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Emily C. Dzurak, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    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.
  • Dan Casey, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006).
  • In the Matter of: Tracy Toulouse. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Daniel A. Vogel, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    See Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • James R. Waclawik, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    “Credibility determinations are the excl usive province of the ULJ and will not be disturbed on appeal.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Abdirahman Warsame, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Skarhus v. Davanni’s, Inc.
  • David Luckow, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Skarhus v. Davanni’ s Inc.
  • Pierre A. Goudiaby, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., .
  • Wahnita Felien, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    1a(a) (2018) (“When the credibility of a witness testifying in a hearing has a significant effect on the outcome of a decision, the unemployment law judge must set out the reason for crediting or discrediting that testimony.”); Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (“Credibility determinations are the exclusive province of the ULJ and will not be disturbed on appeal.”).
  • Erwin Butler, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    See Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (“Credibility determinations are the exclusive province of the ULJ and will not be disturbed on appeal.”).
  • Tami Kraker, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    On review of a ULJ’s findings of fact, “we will not disturb the ULJ’s fac tual findings when the evidence substantially sustains them.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Rebecca Greenstein, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Kristin K. Choronzy, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Donald Thaemert, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    “Whether an employee committed misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Pamela Powell, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    “[W]hether the act committed by the empl oyee constitutes employment misconduct is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Richard Thurmer, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    But on review of an ULJ’s findings of fact, “we will not disturb the ULJ’s factual findings when the evidence substantially sustains them.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Sokkhan Ka, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    “Whether an employee committed misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Katerina Steiger, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Whether an employee “committed a particular act is a question of fact.” Skarhus v. Davanni ’s Inc.
  • Robyn Potter, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Walter Nachtigall, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Robert Welch, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Grp., d 7 328, 332 (Minn. App. 2009) (quoting Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., ).
  • Brittany Selander, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Michael Schemel, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    “A reviewing court accords deference to a ULJ’s decision not to hold an additional hearing and wi ll reverse that decision only for an abuse of discretion.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Sharon Olsen, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Skarhus v. Davanni’s, Inc.
  • Dawn Johnson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    be on vibrate or loud enough to hear” and that , at the time of her discharge, she was reminded “ that it was a medical necessity for her to be available by phone, and sh e was not available.” The ULJ made an express determination that Johnson was “not credible .” “Credibility determinations are the exclusive province of the ULJ and will not be disturbed on appeal.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s
  • Eric Petersen, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    The credibility of witnesses is the “exclusive province of the ULJ and will not be disturbed on appeal.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s, Inc.
  • Wendy Davis, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Patty Kirkey, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Joanne Lane, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    “Whether the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Isaac Erickson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    See Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (“Credibility determinations are the exclusive province of the ULJ and will not be disturbed on appeal.”).
  • Latonia Rolbiecki, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Ryan Wille, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    “Whether the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Clayton Teslow, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    4(1) (2016); Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc. , 3 (Minn. App. 2006).
  • Glenda Brush, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Whether an employee “committed a particular act is a question of 5 fact.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Richard Inyang, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Mark Johnson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    “Whether [an] employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Granville Butler, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Hussein Elseweissy, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Heidi Kardell, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Scott Souter, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Skarhus v. Dava nni’s Inc., d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006).
  • Robert T. O’Neill, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Patti A. Peroni, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    5 “Whether the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Nse Umana, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Sean Roulo, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    See Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
  • Charlotte Smith, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    See Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc. , (stating that this court gives “deference to the credibility determinations made by the ULJ”).
  • Richard Christensen, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    We view the ULJ’s factual findings in th e light most favorable to the decision, giving deference to the credibility determinations made by the ULJ.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (citations omitted).