Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Windsperger v. Broadway Liquor Outlet, 346 N.W.2d 142.

69 citing documents.

Eric Petersen, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
6(d); cf. Windsperger v. Broadway Liquor Outlet , .
Potter v. Northern Empire Pizza, Inc. 805 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Potter v. Northern Empire Pizza, Inc. 805 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Jenkins v. AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL CORP. 702 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Jenkins v. AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL CORP. 702 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Ress v. Abbott NW Hosp., Inc., (explaining that the issue in economic-security cases “is not whether [relator] should have been terminated, but whether, now that she is unemployed, she should be denied unemployment compensation benefits as well”).
Isse v. Alamo Rent-A-Car 590 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Isse v. Alamo Rent-A-Car 590 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Hamilton relies on a contemporaneously filed decision, which quoted the definition of misconduct adopted in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372
Fujan v. RUFFRIDGE-JOHNSON EQUIPMENT 535 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Fujan v. RUFFRIDGE-JOHNSON EQUIPMENT 535 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Shell v. Host International (Corp.) 513 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Shell v. Host International (Corp.) 513 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Hayes v. Wrico Stamping Griffiths Corp. 490 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Hayes v. Wrico Stamping Griffiths Corp. 490 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Hansen v. C.W. Mears, Inc. 486 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Hansen v. C.W. Mears, Inc. 486 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
McCourtney v. Imprimis Technology, Inc. 465 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
McCourtney v. Imprimis Technology, Inc. 465 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Meehan v. Lull Corp. 466 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Meehan v. Lull Corp. 466 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Riley v. Transport Corp. of America, Inc. 462 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Riley v. Transport Corp. of America, Inc. 462 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
( Lumpkin v. North Central Airlines, 296 Minn. 456, 459-60 , ).
Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Inc. 448 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1989
Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Inc. 448 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1989
Nelson v. Star Tribune 445 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Nelson v. Star Tribune 445 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(“the issue * * * is not whether Windsperger should have been terminated, but whether, now that she is unemployed, she should be denied unemployment compensation benefits as well.” Id.
Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Inc. 438 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Gradine v. College of St. Scholastica 426 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Gradine v. College of St. Scholastica 426 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
McGowan v. Executive Express Transportation Enterprises, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1988
McGowan v. Executive Express Transportation Enterprises, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1988
See, e.g., Sticha v. McDonald’s No. 291
Thurner v. Philip Clinic, Ltd. 413 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Thurner v. Philip Clinic, Ltd. 413 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(isolated temper tantrum or single hotheaded incident does not amount to misconduct justifying denial of unemployment compensation benefits).
McCoy v. Spicer Off-Highway Axle Division 412 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
McCoy v. Spicer Off-Highway Axle Division 412 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the supreme court held that “an isolated hotheaded incident which does not interfere with the employer’s business is not misconduct * * * justifying a denial of unemployment compensation benefits”.
McGowan v. Executive Express Transportation Enterprises, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Skic v. Beverage Transportation 407 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Skic v. Beverage Transportation 407 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Skic cites Sticha v. McDonald’s No. 291, in support of this argument; however, Windsperger dealt with an isolated “hotheaded ” incident, which is not the case here.
Cavalier v. C. Machine Co. 404 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Cavalier v. C. Machine Co. 404 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
for his claim that his conduct on May 14 constituted a “single hotheaded incident.” In Windsperger , the court stated that “an isolated hotheaded incident which does not interfere with the employer's business is not misconduct * * * justifying a denial of unemployment compensation benefits.” Id.
Mark W. Peterson Law Offices v. Murphey 392 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Mark W. Peterson Law Offices v. Murphey 392 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Murphey, on the other hand
Hendricks & Lamers, Ltd. v. Vadnais 389 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hendricks & Lamers, Ltd. v. Vadnais 389 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
As the supreme court has noted, “[t]he issue * * * is not whether [the employee] should have been terminated, but whether, now that she is unemployed, she should be denied unemployment compensation benefits as well.”
Enz v. Holiday Inn North 388 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Enz v. Holiday Inn North 388 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Although an employer may be unhappy with an employee’s performance and may even have good cause for discharging the employee, “[t]he issue * * * is not whether [the employee] should have been terminated, but whether, now that she is unemployed, she should be denied unemployment compensation benefits as well.”
Norman v. Rosemount, Inc. 383 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Norman v. Rosemount, Inc. 383 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
our supreme court held that “an isolated hotheaded incident which does not interfere with the employer’s business is not misconduct * * * justifying a denial of unemployment compensation benefits.” Id.
Deering v. Unitog Rental Services 381 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Deering v. Unitog Rental Services 381 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“[t]he issue * * * is not whether [the employee] should have been terminated, but whether, now that she is unemployed, she should be denied unemployment compensation benefits as well.” Therefore, although the terms of their agreement allowed Unitog to discharge Deering when she was late for work only
Oman v. Daig Corp. 375 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1985