Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Board, 356 N.W.2d 295.

89 citing documents.

Rw v. Tf 510 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Bd.
Pirsig v. Pleasant Mound Mutual Fire Insurance Co. 512 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Pirsig v. Pleasant Mound Mutual Fire Insurance Co. 512 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
§ 572.19.” AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Bd.
R.W. v. T.F. 510 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
R.W. v. T.F. 510 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Bd.
Geldert v. American National Bank 506 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Geldert v. American National Bank 506 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Bd., the court considered whether an employee threatened with discharge from the corrections board had a right to both a Veterans Preference Hearing under Minn.Stat.
Winberg v. University of Minnesota 499 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1993
Distinguished Winberg v. University of Minnesota 499 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1993
They cite Henry v. Metropolitan Waste Control Comm’n, Caffrey v. Metropolitan Airports Comm’n, 310 Minn. 480 , and AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Bd., as cases in which the Veterans Preference Act was applied to independent units of government not named by the Act.
Erickson v. Commissioner of the Department of Human Services for the State 494 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Erickson v. Commissioner of the Department of Human Services for the State 494 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Collateral estoppel and res judicata are not rigidly applied, however, and they “ ‘are qualified or rejected when their application would contravene an overriding public policy.’ ” (quoting Tipler v. E.I.
Winberg v. University of Minnesota 485 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Winberg v. University of Minnesota 485 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Bd.
Graham v. Special School District No. 1 462 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Graham v. Special School District No. 1 462 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See, AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Bd., McKee v. County of Ramsey, 310 Minn. 192 , 194 n. 1, , 462 n. 1 (1976).
Surf and Sand, Inc. v. Gardebring 457 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Surf and Sand, Inc. v. Gardebring 457 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See also AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Correction Board, pet.
Schoen v. County of St. Louis 448 N.W.2d 112 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Schoen v. County of St. Louis 448 N.W.2d 112 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
The relationship between veterans preference rights and rights under a civil service system was further explained in AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Board
Wangen v. Commissioner of Public Safety 437 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Wangen v. Commissioner of Public Safety 437 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
duPont deNemours and Co., 443 F.2d 125, 128 (6th Cir.1971), quoted in AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Board
Medcenters Health Care, Inc. v. Park NicolletCenter 430 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Medcenters Health Care, Inc. v. Park NicolletCenter 430 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
§ 572.19 * * * and not because the court disagrees with the decision on the merits.” AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Board, -300 (Minn. 1984).
Franke v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 421 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Franke v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 421 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Board
Johnson v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1988
Johnson v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1988
AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Board
Gruman v. Hendrickson 416 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gruman v. Hendrickson 416 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
§ 572.19 and not because the court disagrees with the decision on the merits.” AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Board, -300 (Minn.1984).
Pawelk v. Camden Township 415 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Pawelk v. Camden Township 415 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Board
Koranda v. Austin Mutual Insurance Co. 397 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Koranda v. Austin Mutual Insurance Co. 397 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
§ 572.19 * * * and not because the court disagrees with the decision on the merits.” AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Board, -300 (Minn.1984) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).
Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency v. Schrader 394 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1986
Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency v. Schrader 394 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1986
In AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Board, we again commented on the scope of power of a hearing board sitting under the Act.
L.K. v. Gregg 380 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
L.K. v. Gregg 380 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Board, (neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel is rigidly applied where an agency acts in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity).
Young v. City of Duluth 372 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Young v. City of Duluth 372 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The supreme court has determined, however, that “despite the equivalence of the two hearing procedures, when both are properly conducted, there are strong public policies which dictate allowing a veteran to elect both hearings.” AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Board