Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLC, 771 N.W.2d 14.

61 citing documents.

Minnesota Alliance for Retired Americans Educational Fund v. Steve Simon Minn. 2026
Kratzer v. Welsh Cos., 25 (“We look beyond the plain language of the statutory or regulatory provision only if the text is ambiguous.”); Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644, 674 (2020) (“[W]hen the meaning of the statute’s terms is plain, our job is at an end.”).
In re The Gus A. Chafoulias Revocable Trust, dated April 28, 2005, as amended Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re The Gus A. Chafoulias Revocable Trust, dated April 28, 2005, as amended Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Kratzer v. Welsh Cos., LLC, cf. Frederick, d at 172 (explaining, in the context of a typical judgment on the pleadings, that the court must accept the complaint’s facts as true and draw any reasonable inferences to favor the nonmovant).
Humana MarketPoint, Inc., Relator, vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent Minn. 2025
Humana MarketPoint, Inc., Relator, vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent Minn. 2025
(“We look beyond the plain language of the statutory or regulatory provision only if the text is ambiguous.”); n.4 (Minn. 2017) (rejecting the concurrence’s pre-ambiguity use of a post-ambiguity canon of construction).
Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. 2025
Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. 2025
Laurissa Wredberg v. Canvas Health, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-19 (Minn. 2009) (applying a previous version of subdivision 1).
Sean Bruce Henry v. Servion, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Kratzer v. Welsh Cos., LLC , -23 (Minn. 2009).
Minn. 2024
n.4 (Minn. 2017) (citing Kratzer v. Welsh Cos., LLC , d 14, 21 (Minn. 2009)) (stating that the imputed common- law canon only applies after it is determined that the text is ambiguous); n.2 (Minn. 2019) (citing Thonesavanh, d at 439 n.4).
Anne Doering v. Neighbor Senior Services, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Court of Appeals Gildea, C.J. Concurring, Chutich, Thissen, JJ. Lori Dowling Hanson Minn. 2022
Because the standard of review requires us to view evidence in the light most favorable to Hanson, see Kratzer v. Welsh Cos. , we disregard these issues that occurred before the incident in question.
Larry John Laver v. Jennifer Culver Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Lisa Larkins v. State of Minnesota, Department of Revenue Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Kratzer v. Welsh Cos., LLC
Daniel Loftus, et al v. Jeffery Manning, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Generally, “an employer may terminate an employee for any reason or for no reason.” Kratzer v. Welsh Cos. , LLC, n.7 (Minn. 2009).
Debra Sakrison v. City of Gilbert Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In 11 evaluating whether conduct is protected under the MWA, appellate courts “assume that the facts have occurred as reported” and then determine “whether t hose facts constitute a violation of law or rule adopted pursuant to law.” Kratzer v. Welsh Cos., LLC, d 14, 22 (Minn. 2009) (quotation omitted).
Charity Slaughter v. Independent School District No. 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[A] mere report of behavior that is problematic or even reprehensible, but not a violation of the law, is not pro tected conduct under the Whistleblower Act.” Kratzer v. Welsh Cos.
Court of Appeals Thissen, J. Concurring, Anderson, J., Gildea, C.J. Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Minn. 2020
Kratzer v. Welsh Cos., LLC
A. Darlene Gibson v. Special School District #1 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Wayne P. Steffens v. State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Kratzer v. Welsh Cos. , .
1A Smart Start, Inc., et al v. Minnesota Department of Public Safety, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
AgCountry Farm Credit Services, ACA v. Richard Steven Elbert Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Kratzer v. Welsh Cos., LLC
Dering Pierson Group, LLC v. Rockstar Design LLC, Cash Flow Management, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Kratzer v. Welsh Cos., LLC
State v. Thonesavanh 904 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2017
State v. Thonesavanh 904 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2017
However, as we have recognized, this canon applies only if the “text is ambiguous.” Kratzer v. Welsh Cos., LLC
Sean Roulo v. Key Lakes, Inc., et al., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Amy Stevens v. Smart Parts Automotive, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Right to discharge without incurring liability Generally, “an employer may terminate an employee for any reason or for no reason.” n.7 (Minn. 2009).
Jodi L. Toedter, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Susan Ann Gray v. Winona County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jodi L. Toedter, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Susan Ann Gray v. Winona County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kratzer v. Welsh Cos., LLC
Mary Jo Delaney v. Cragun Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mary Jo Delaney v. Cragun Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The district court relied on Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLC, to reason that Delaney could not meet the first element of a prima facie case for an MHRA reprisal claim unless she could establish that she was being punished for reporting an actual violation of the MHRA.
Michael A. Pemrick v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael A. Pemrick v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
On the other hand, “an employer may terminate an employee for any reason or for no reason.” n.7 (Minn. 2009).
John K. Hochstein v. Video Surveillance Solutions, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John K. Hochstein v. Video Surveillance Solutions, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Susanne M. Glasser v. Butler Liberty Law, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Susanne M. Glasser v. Butler Liberty Law, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
On the other hand, “[g]enerally, in Minnesota, the employer-employee relationship is at-will, which means that an employer may terminate an employee for any reason or for no reason.” n.7 (Minn. 2009).
In the Matter of Reichmann Land and Cattle, LLP. 867 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2015
In the Matter of Reichmann Land and Cattle, LLP. 867 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2015
(“We look beyond the plain language of the statutory or regulatory provision only if the text is ambiguous.”).
Barbara Peterson v. HealthEast Woodwinds Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Barbara Peterson v. HealthEast Woodwinds Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Servs., (claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy); (statutory whistleblower claim).
J. D. Donovan, Inc., et al v. Minnesota Department of Transportation, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
J. D. Donovan, Inc., et al v. Minnesota Department of Transportation, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kratzer v. Welsh Cos., LLC
Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC, et al v. United Prairie Bank of Mountain Lake Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC, et al v. United Prairie Bank of Mountain Lake Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Kratzer v. Welsh Cos., LLC
Lowell Tietz v. United Rentals (North America), Inc., General Equipment Company, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Lowell Tietz v. United Rentals (North America), Inc., General Equipment Company, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Kratzer v. Welsh Cos., LLC
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Letellier 820 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Letellier 820 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Coursolle v. EMC Insurance Group, Inc. 794 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2011