Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Colburn v. Pine Portage Madden Bros., Inc., 346 N.W.2d 159.

66 citing documents.

Cherry v. American National Insurance Co. 426 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Cherry v. American National Insurance Co. 426 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Colburn v. Pine Portage Madden Bros., Inc.
Bibeau v. Resistance Technology, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bibeau v. Resistance Technology, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Colburn v. Pine Portage Madden Brothers, Inc.
Tuckerman Optical Corp. v. Thoeny 407 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Tuckerman Optical Corp. v. Thoeny 407 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Colburn v. Pine Portage Madden Bros., Inc.
Nelson v. Hartz Truckline 401 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nelson v. Hartz Truckline 401 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
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
While a single instance of behavior may constitute misconduct if it evidences a sufficient disregard for an employer’s interests, (see Colburn v. Pine Portage Madden Bros., Inc., Blau v. Master’s Restaurant Association, Inc., ), Murphey’s remark does not appear to have risen to the level of wilfulness, wantonness or equally culpable negligence required by Tilseth .
Del Dee Foods, Inc. v. Miller 390 N.W.2d 415 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Del Dee Foods, Inc. v. Miller 390 N.W.2d 415 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
For example, in Colburn v. Pine Portage Madden Brothers, Inc., where a waitress was told that she could leave early one evening after serving all of the guests, but left after serving only the soup course, the court found that her actions constituted misconduct.
Eddins v. Chippewa Springs Corp. 388 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Followed Eddins v. Chippewa Springs Corp. 388 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
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
For example, in Colburn v. Pine Portage Madden Brothers, Inc., the supreme court upheld a finding of misconduct where a waitress was fired after she had been specifically instructed to serve an entire meal to a group of 60 people but left for another engagement after serving only one course.