DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc., 483 N.W.2d 701.

42 citing documents.

  • Barbara Henry, Minn. 2023
    Res., – 73 (Minn. 2022) ; Feges v. Perkins Rests., Inc., –11 (Minn. 1992) (applying McDonnell Douglas to an age discrimination claim under the Human Rights Act).
  • Shanon Renee Harper, DNP, NP, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    “[A]n employee handbook may constitute terms of an employment contract if (1) the terms are definite in form; (2) the terms are communicated to the employee; (3) the offer is accepted by the employee; and (4) consideration is given.” Feges v. Perkins Rests., Inc.
  • Vicki Metcalf, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    “The reason must be offered by admissible evidence, be of a character to justify a judgment for the defendant, and must be clear and reasonably specific enough to enable the plaintiff to rebut the proffered reason as pretextual.” Feges v. Perkins Rests., Inc., (stating employee’s “substandard and erratic performance as a manager” 15 were legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason s for discharge); see also Hoover, d at 545 ( discharging employee because her “files failed to comply with internal pol
  • Minn. 2021
    See also Feges v. Perkins Rests., Inc., d 701, 707 (Minn. 1992) (“[A]n employee handbook may constitute terms of an employment contract if (1) the terms are definite in form; (2) the terms are communicated to the employee; (3) the offer is accepted by the employee; and (4) consideration is given.”).
  • Timothy Wodarck, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    In reaching its decision, the district court relied on Ray v. Miller Meester Advert., Inc., -08 (Minn. 2004), and Feges v. Perkins Rests., Inc. , to conclude 3 that the award of lost future earning capacity was unsupported as a matter of law .
  • Moore v. City of New Brighton 932 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • Moore v. City of New Brighton 932 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Sigurdson v. Isanti County , , 720 (Minn. 1986) (quotation omitted); cf. Feges v. Perkins Rests., Inc. , , 711 (Minn. 1992) ("Perkins'[s] proffered reasons for its decision to fire Feges were capable of being exposed as pretext and Feges made a valiant attempt to do so [at trial].").
  • Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc. 796 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2011
  • Coursolle v. EMC Insurance Group, Inc. 794 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • Coursolle v. EMC Insurance Group, Inc. 794 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    “[A]n employee handbook may constitute terms of an employment contract if (1) the terms are definite in form; (2) the terms are communicated to the employee; (3) the offer is accepted by the employee; and (4) consideration is given.” Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc.
  • Roberts v. Brunswick Corp. 783 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Roberts v. Brunswick Corp. 783 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    “[A]n employee handbook may constitute terms of an employment contract if (1) the terms are definite in form; (2) the terms are communicated to the employee; (3) the offer is accepted by the employee; and (4) consideration is given.” Feges v. Perkins Rests., Inc.
  • Alexandria Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Rost 756 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Alexandria Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Rost 756 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    “[A]n employee handbook may constitute terms of an employment contract if (1) the terms are definite in form; (2) the terms are communicated to the employee; (3) the offer is accepted by the employee; and (4) consideration is given.” Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc.
  • Kluball v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 706 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Kluball v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 706 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    See, e.g., Feges v. Perkins Rests., Inc., (noting that whether an employee rebutted response offered by an employer for firing the employee presents a question of fact).
  • Riley Bros. Construction, Inc. v. Shuck 704 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Riley Bros. Construction, Inc. v. Shuck 704 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    Feges v. Perkins Rests., Inc., (stating that ability to accept an offer is lost if the offer is revoked at any time before the offer is accepted); Stone v. Harmon, 31 Minn. 512, 515 , 19 N.W.
  • Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 684 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 2004
  • Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 684 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 2004
    “In employment contracts, the general rule is that ‘[t]he measure of damages for breach of an employment contract is the compensation which an employee who has been wrongfully discharged would have received had the contract been carried out according to its terms.’ ” Feges v. Perkins Rests., Inc., (quoting Zeller v. Prior Lake Pub.
  • Goins v. West Group 635 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2001
  • Goins v. West Group 635 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2001
  • Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 632 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2001
  • Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 632 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2001
    Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc., -11 (Minn.1992); see also Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., (“As the result of the substantial similarities existing between Title VII and [the MHRA], we have frequently applied principles which have evolved in the adjudication of claims under the federal act, and, spec
  • Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 605 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 605 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    See, e.g., Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc., Isanti County, d at 720 .
  • Diez v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing 564 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Diez v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing 564 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc., , 710 n. 4 (Minn.1992).
  • Phong Thi Doan v. Medtronic, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Phong Thi Doan v. Medtronic, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    see also Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc., (third prong of McDonnell Douglas test requires plaintiff to show proffered reason was pretext for discrimination or not worthy of belief).
  • Dietrich v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. 536 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1995
  • Dietrich v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. 536 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1995
    Sigurdson, d at 720 ; see also Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc.
  • Hasnudeen v. Onan Corp. 531 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • Hasnudeen v. Onan Corp. 531 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc., (citing McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 , 93 S.Ct.
  • Johnson v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. 522 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Johnson v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. 522 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    The court relied largely on Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc., rev’d in part on other grounds
  • Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. 520 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. 520 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Brown v. Tonka Corp. 519 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Brown v. Tonka Corp. 519 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    *478 See Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc., (employer must communicate offer to employee whom offer addresses)..
  • Ward v. Employee Development Corp. 516 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Ward v. Employee Development Corp. 516 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1994