Cited by

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

69 citing documents.

Oman v. Daig Corp. 375 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Applying the Tilseth standard, the supreme court has also 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.”
St. Williams Nursing Home v. Koep 369 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
St. Williams Nursing Home v. Koep 369 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Tester v. Jefferson Lines 358 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Tester v. Jefferson Lines 358 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Mankato Lutheran Home v. Miller 358 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Mankato Lutheran Home v. Miller 358 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Daniels v. Gnan Trucking 352 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Daniels v. Gnan Trucking 352 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Although the refusal to unload was a single incident, it was a deliberate act of insubordination rather than a single “hot headed”
Little v. Larson Bus Service 352 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Little v. Larson Bus Service 352 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
wherein the supreme court held that “an isolated hotheaded incident which does not interfere with the employer’s business is not misconduct ...
Hines v. Sheraton Ritz Hotel 349 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Distinguished Hines v. Sheraton Ritz Hotel 349 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
This case is distinguishable from the “isolated hot-headed incidents” Hamilton v. International Dairy Queen, Inc.
Flannigan v. Meadow Lane Health Care Center 347 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Flannigan v. Meadow Lane Health Care Center 347 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hamilton v. International Dairy Queen, Inc.
Sticha v. McDonald's No. 291 346 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1984
Hamilton v. International Dairy Queen, Inc. 346 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1984
Hamilton v. International Dairy Queen, Inc. 346 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1984
We reverse that determination, , filed contemporaneously with this decision.
Sticha v. McDonald's No. 291 346 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1984
On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inad-vertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good-faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed ‘misconduct’ * * holds that an isolated hotheaded incident which does not interfere with the employer’s business is not “misconduct” which disqualifies an employee from unemployment compensation benefits under Minn.Stat.