Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hedglin v. City of Willmar, 582 N.W.2d 897.

22 citing documents.

Debra Sakrison, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Id.; see, e.g., Obst v. Microtron, Inc. , (determining that report of safety concerns about windshield wipers did not implicate a violation of law and therefore wa s not protected under the MWA); (conc luding report of firefighters allegedly “showing up at fire calls while drunk” did no t implicate illegal conduct even though such conduct was “reprehensible”).
Wayne P. Steffens, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at 22; Nordling v. N. States Power Co. , .
Shannon Miller, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at 486; (“[O]ur only holding in Williams was that a plaintiff who brings a claim under the [MHRA] is barred from also bringing a claim under the [MWA].”).
Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLC 771 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLC 771 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
Obst v. Microtron, Inc., (concluding that a report that raised safety concerns about a windshield-wiper device did not allege illegal conduct necessary to support a whistleblower claim); (concluding that a report alleging that firefighters were “showing up at fire calls while drunk” suggested reprehensible conduct but did not present a violation of a law such that the report would be protected); (concluding that a report
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
GRUNDTNER v. University of Minnesota 730 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
GRUNDTNER v. University of Minnesota 730 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2002
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2002
1(a) ] clearly and unambiguously protects reports made of a violation of any federal or state law or rule adopted pursuant to law.” -02 (Minn.1998).
Cokley v. City of Otsego 623 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Cokley v. City of Otsego 623 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Obst v. Microtron, Inc., (determining whether plaintiff reported a violation of law); (finding vague reports of reprehensible conduct, where no statute or rule is violated by such conduct, are not reports); Donahue v. Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A., (holding complaint of internal payroll deduction practices did not implicate public p
Obst v. Microtron, Inc. 614 N.W.2d 196 Minn. 2000
Obst v. Microtron, Inc. 614 N.W.2d 196 Minn. 2000
1(a) (1998); -02 (Minn.1998).
A&H VENDING CO. v. Commissioner of Revenue 608 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 2000
A&H VENDING CO. v. Commissioner of Revenue 608 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 2000
Obst v. Microtron, Inc. 588 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Obst v. Microtron, Inc. 588 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Donahue v. Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A. 586 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Donahue v. Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A. 586 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(recognizing-firefighters’ reports also implicated public interest, and cautioning against construing whistleblower statute too broadly to protect reports without public policy nexus); see also Janklow v. Minnesota Bd.
Bersch v. Rgnonti & Associates, Inc. 584 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Bersch v. Rgnonti & Associates, Inc. 584 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1998