Cited by

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

479 citing documents.

Pamela L. Ott, Relator v. Timberland Partners Management Co. (Corp), Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
James Richardson Jr., Relator v. Alamco Wood Products LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Brian Freed, Relator v. Wholesale Tire & Wheel of MN, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven Morris Smith, Relator v. Family Life Mental Health Center, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
James Richardson Jr., Relator v. Alamco Wood Products LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
oyment-law judge also found that “Richardson’s testimony that he was not aware Alamco prohibited smoking on the entire property is simply not a plausible assertion, and therefore Richardson’s testimony on this matter is not credible.” “Credibility determinations are the exclusive province of the [unemployment-law judge] and will not be disturbed on appeal.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 345 (Minn. App. 2006).
Steven Morris Smith, Relator v. Family Life Mental Health Center, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Brian Freed, Relator v. Wholesale Tire & Wheel of MN, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Michael Robin, Relator v. BHSI LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Charles Lambert Bey, Relator v. W.W. Johnson Meat Co., Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michael Robin, Relator v. BHSI LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Charles Lambert Bey, Relator v. W.W. Johnson Meat Co., Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Credibility determinations are for the ULJ to make, Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (stating that ULJ must make credibility determinations), and the unemployment statute requires the ULJ to enumerate the reasons for finding one witness more credible than another, Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd.
Pamela Jeanne Googe, Relator v. Capstone Services, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Pamela Jeanne Googe, Relator v. Capstone Services, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (citations omitted).
Icenhower v. Total Automotive, Inc. 845 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Icenhower v. Total Automotive, Inc. 845 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In Cherveny v. 10,000 Auto Parts, we concluded that “[r]elator’s dishonesty in an investigation by the employer into an alleged theft of employer’s goods was misconduct sufficient to disqualify relator from unemployment compensation benefits.” see also Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (holding that employee’s single incident of theft from employer has significant adverse impact on employer and constitutes employment misconduct).
Eley v. Southshore Investments, Inc. 845 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Eley v. Southshore Investments, Inc. 845 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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.
Wiley v. Robert Half International, Inc. 834 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Wiley v. Robert Half International, Inc. 834 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
We view the unemployment-law judge’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision and will not disturb them “when the evidence substantially sustains them.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Van de Werken v. Bell & Howell, LLC 834 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Van de Werken v. Bell & Howell, LLC 834 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Continental Hydraulics Inc. v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 832 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Continental Hydraulics Inc. v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 832 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Godbout v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 827 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Godbout v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 827 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Wiley v. Dolphin Staffing-Dolphin Clerical Group 825 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Wiley v. Dolphin Staffing-Dolphin Clerical Group 825 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Thao v. Command Center, Inc. 824 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Thao v. Command Center, Inc. 824 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Haugen v. Superior Development, Inc. 819 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Haugen v. Superior Development, Inc. 819 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Skarhus v. Davanni’s, Inc.
Builders Commonwealth, Inc. v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 814 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Builders Commonwealth, Inc. v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 814 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Rowan v. Dream It, Inc. 812 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Rowan v. Dream It, Inc. 812 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
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).
Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC 814 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC 814 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Skarhus v. Davanni’s, Inc.
Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. 809 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. 809 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Peterson v. Northeast Bank—Minneapolis 805 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Peterson v. Northeast Bank—Minneapolis 805 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Potter v. Northern Empire Pizza, Inc. 805 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Potter v. Northern Empire Pizza, Inc. 805 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Lewis v. West Side Community Health Services, Inc. 802 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Lewis v. West Side Community Health Services, Inc. 802 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
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).
Bergen v. Sonnie of St. Paul, Inc. 799 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Bergen v. Sonnie of St. Paul, Inc. 799 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
The court views the ULJ’s findings of fact “in the light most favorable to the decision,” and will not disturb those findings “when the evidence substantially sustains them.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Dourney v. CMAK Corp. 796 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Dourney v. CMAK Corp. 796 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.
Nelson v. Levy 796 N.W.2d 336 Minn. Ct. App. 2011

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by