Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312.

283 citing documents.

Cleo K. Clemmer v. The Cook Hospital, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We will not disturb those findings “as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.”
Andrew D. Forsgren v. University of Minnesota Physicians Corp., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Unemployment benefits are intended to provide financial assistance to persons who have been discharged from employment “through no fault of their own.” Stagg v. Vintage 5 Place Inc., (quotation omitted).
Julie Costello v. Fond du Lac Reservation, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Nathan M. Christenson v. RIHM Motor Company, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Whether an employee committed employment misconduct “is a mixed question of fact and law.”
Maureen McCulloch v. William K. Swanstrom, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We will not disturb those findings “as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.”
Kevin R. Ballman v. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011).
Cassandra Ferdig v. Northwestern Minnesota Juvenile Center, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Whether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law.” (quotation omitted).
Tyrone L. Hubbard v. Preferred Concrete Construction, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We will not reverse a UL J’s factual findings “as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.” Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc. , d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011).
Robert H. Larsen v. First State Bank Southwest, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Timothy J. Rosenberger v. South-Town, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Whether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law.” (quotation omitted).
Jean-Yves Viardin v. Eclipse Select MN LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Antonio Johnson v. Fitness International LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Whether an employee engaged in cond uct that disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law.” (quotation omitted).
Anthony Richmond v. Vanden Hoak Cleaning, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“W hether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies the employee from unemployment be nefits is a mixed que stion of fact and law.” (quotation omitted).
Dennis Field v. Casey’s Services Co., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Aries Williams v. ME Savage Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Whether an employee enga ged in conduct that dis qualifies the employee from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law.” (quotation omitted).
Dianne Strohmayer v. A&E Care Services, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We will not disturb those findings “as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.” Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc.
Jacob Holly v. Cedarock Builders LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc.
Donovan Casey v. Wash N Fill Express of New Brighton, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Unemployment benefits are intended to provide financial assistance to persons who have been discharged from employment “through no fault of their own.” Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Edward Curtis, Jr. v. ARG Resources LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Zebyderu Abay v. Samaritan Bethany Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Teresa M. Lentz v. Fairview Health Services, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Place, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Dantzler Thomas v. Thermotech LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Unemployment benefits are intended to pr ovide financial assistance to persons who have been discharged from employment “through no fault of their own.” Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Craig Hanson v. Autism Opportunities Foundation, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Whether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law.” Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Richard Braegelmann v. Hansen Flooring Gallery, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Rhonda Peterson v. DJ’s Companies Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellate courts review a ULJ’s factual findings “in the light most favorable to the decision.” Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc.
Todd Leuze v. Minnesota Valley Alfalfa Producers, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Ctr., (quoting Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc. , ).
Myisha Jackson v. Senior Care Solutions, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Song Sibell v. U. S. Postal Service, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In cases involving unemployment benefits, an appellate court reviews the ULJ’s factual findings “in the light most favorable to the decision.” Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc., d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011).
Jack Grew v. Island Investment Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Randall Rahn v. Midway Farm Equipment, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Charlene Hughes v. Vivien Bacaner, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Connie J. Meier v. Steven E. Pierce, CPA, Ltd., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Unemployment benefits are intended to provide financial assistance to persons who have been discharged from employment “through no fault of their own.” Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Emily C. Dzurak v. Discover Strength Personal Fitness Center, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Rhonda Ruhland v. Big Island Swim & Surf, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc.
Dan Casey v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc., d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011).
Shivsaywack Singh v. Grand Casino Hinckley, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011).
Daniel A. Vogel v. Order of St. Benedict, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Unemployment benefits are intended to provide financial assistance to persons who have been discharged from employment “through no fault of their own.” Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Abdirahman Warsame v. Arlyce Cleveland, Ltd., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
David Luckow v. City of Saint Paul, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Whether an employee’s absenteeism and tardiness amounts to a serious violation of the standards of behavior an employer has a right to expect depends on the circumstances of each case.” 4 Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc., see also Del Dee Foods, d at 418 (stating that in certain circumstances, it is employment misconduct to be absent even once without notice to the employer).
Pierre A. Goudiaby v. Sky Water Technology Foundry, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Whether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law.” (quotation omitted).
Wahnita Felien v. VFW Richfield Fred Babcock Post 5555, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We review the ULJ’s findings of fact in the light most favorable to the decision and will not disturb the findings if “there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.”
Rebecca Greenstein v. Allina Health System, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc.
Kristin K. Choronzy v. Viracon, Inc. (1995) (Joint Account), Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Whether an employee’s absenteeism and tardiness amounts to a serious violation of the standards of behavior an employer has a right to expect depends on the circumstances of each case.”
Donald Thaemert v. Electrolux Home Appliances, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Unemployment benefits are intended to provide financial assistance to persons who have been discharged from employment “through no fault of their own.” Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Pamela Powell v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc. , 5 (Minn. 2011).
Mark Scott v. Artistic Finishes, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc.
In re the Matter of the Maltreatment Appeal of Watta Yanor Kamara Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at *2 (d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011)).
Sokkhan Ka v. Lonvigson’s Service Center, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc.
Christopher Herkal v. Employer Solutions Staffing Group II, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We will not disturb a ULJ’s factual findings “as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.”
Robyn Potter v. St. Joseph's Medical Center, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N Unemployment benefits are intended to provide financial assistance to persons who have been discharged from employment “through no fault of their own.” Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc., (quotation omitted).