Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., 417 N.W.2d 619.

131 citing documents.

Green v. BMW of North America, LLC 826 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 2013
Green v. BMW of North America, LLC 826 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 2013
Bank, F.B.S., (statute prohibiting employee polygraph testing); Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., -30 (Minn.1988) (Minnesota Human Rights Act); Specialized Tours, d at 542 (Minnesota *536 Securities Act).
City of Maple Grove v. Marketline Construction Capital, LLC 802 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
City of Maple Grove v. Marketline Construction Capital, LLC 802 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Exch., (quotation omitted); see also Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., -30 (Minn.1988) (remanding for findings after district court accepted at face value one party’s representation of the hours expended without further analysis).
Friend v. Gopher Co., Inc. 771 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Friend v. Gopher Co., Inc. 771 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
see also Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., Inc., (holding that protected trait must be “a substantial causative factor”).
Milner v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 748 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 2008
Milner v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 748 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 2008
The lodestar method “requires the court to determine the number of hours ‘reasonably expended’ on the litigation” multiplied by “ ‘a reasonable hourly rate.’ ” Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433 , 103 S.Ct.
Kunza v. St. Mary's Regional Health Center 747 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Kunza v. St. Mary's Regional Health Center 747 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
694, 698 , 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978); see Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., (adopting Title VII standard and procedure for awarding attorney fees).
Milner v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 725 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Milner v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 725 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
See Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., (adopting Hensley).
Meads v. Best Oil Co. 725 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Meads v. Best Oil Co. 725 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
See, e.g., Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., -26 (Minn.1988).
Gee v. Minnesota State Colleges & Universities 700 N.W.2d 548 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Gee v. Minnesota State Colleges & Universities 700 N.W.2d 548 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See 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.”); (applying interpretation of federal an
Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 684 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 2004
Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 664 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 664 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall Co., -30 (Minn.1988) (holding that when the reasonableness of “hours expended” component is challenged, the district court should scrutinize it).
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 636 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 636 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co.
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, specifically we have adopted the McDonnell Douglas analysis as an aid to resolving cases claimin
Benassi v. Back & Neck Pain Clinic, Inc. 629 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Benassi v. Back & Neck Pain Clinic, Inc. 629 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co.
Johns v. Harborage I, Ltd. 585 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Johns v. Harborage I, Ltd. 585 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
First, the trial court should determine the “ ‘lodestar’ ” figure “by multiplying the ‘number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation * * ⅜ by a hourly rate.’” Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433 , 103 S.Ct.
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
[W]ith regard to the third prong of the test, the sole question is “whether or not the court is persuaded that the employee has been the victim of intentional discrimination.” Hasnudeen, d at 557 (quoting Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., ).
Hasnudeen v. Onan Corp. 552 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1996
Hasnudeen v. Onan Corp. 552 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1996
We granted the petition of defendant Onan Corporation for further review of a decision of the court of appeals for the limited purpose of clarifying the relationship between this court’s analysis in Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., and the pronouncement of the United States Supreme Court in St.
Carter v. Peace Officers Standards & Training Board 547 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Carter v. Peace Officers Standards & Training Board 547 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(citing Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., ).
Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc. 544 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc. 544 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(quoting Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., ).
SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co. 536 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1995
SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co. 536 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1995
Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co.
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
According to appellants, however, this “mixed-motive” analysis was rejected by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co.
Jensen v. Hercules, Inc. 524 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Jensen v. Hercules, Inc. 524 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., (adopting the substantial factor test for wrongful discharge cases).
SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co. 515 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co. 515 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co.
McGrath v. TCF BANK SAV., FSB 509 N.W.2d 365 Minn. 1993
McGrath v. TCF BANK SAV., FSB 509 N.W.2d 365 Minn. 1993
As we made clear in Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., even if an employer has a legitimate reason for the discharge, a plaintiff may nevertheless prevail if an illegitimate reason “more likely than not” motivated the discharge decision.
Villarreal v. Independent School District 659 505 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Villarreal v. Independent School District 659 505 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., -27 (Minn. 1988).
McGrath v. TCF Bank Savings, FSB 502 N.W.2d 801 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
McGrath v. TCF Bank Savings, FSB 502 N.W.2d 801 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
1 See Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., -26 (Minn.1988) (discussing federal courts’ analysis of mixed-motive discrimination cases).
Gillson v. State Department of Natural Resources 492 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1992