Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801.

303 citing documents.

Tonya Johnson v. Asbestos Workers Union No. 34, Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Tonya Johnson v. Asbestos Workers Union No. 34, Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We review de novo “[w]hether a particular act constitutes disqualifying misconduct.”
Pamela L. Ott, Relator v. Timberland Partners Management Co. (Corp), Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Pamela L. Ott, Relator v. Timberland Partners Management Co. (Corp), Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.”
James Richardson Jr., Relator v. Alamco Wood Products LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven Morris Smith, Relator v. Family Life Mental Health Center, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
James Richardson Jr., Relator v. Alamco Wood Products LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But we review de novo “[w]hether a particular act constitutes disqualifying misconduct.”
Steven Morris Smith, Relator v. Family Life Mental Health Center, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002).
Andrew R. Patson, Relator v. Skaff Apartments, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Andrew R. Patson, Relator v. Skaff Apartments, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.”
Cynthia Stephen, Relator v. Pro Pilots, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Cynthia Stephen, Relator v. Pro Pilots, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Icenhower v. Total Automotive, Inc. 845 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Icenhower v. Total Automotive, Inc. 845 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.”
Anderson v. Frontier Communications 819 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2012
Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. 809 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. 809 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc. 796 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2011
Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc. 796 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2011
Corp., ( -84 (Minn.1992)).
Dourney v. CMAK Corp. 796 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Dourney v. CMAK Corp. 796 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Brisson v. City of Hewitt 789 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Brisson v. City of Hewitt 789 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Lawrence v. Ratzlaff Motor Express Inc. 785 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Lawrence v. Ratzlaff Motor Express Inc. 785 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“Whether an employee committed employment misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., ().
Marn v. Fairview Pharmacy Services LLC 756 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marn v. Fairview Pharmacy Services LLC 756 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Peterson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 753 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Peterson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 753 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Abdi v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 749 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Abdi v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 749 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Work Connection, Inc. v. Bui 749 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Work Connection, Inc. v. Bui 749 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Frank v. Heartland Automotive Services, Inc. 743 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Frank v. Heartland Automotive Services, Inc. 743 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Wichmann v. Travalia & U.S. Directives, Inc. 729 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Wichmann v. Travalia & U.S. Directives, Inc. 729 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Pierce v. DIMA CORP.(1992) 721 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Pierce v. DIMA CORP.(1992) 721 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Skarhus v. Davanni's Inc. 721 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Skarhus v. Davanni's Inc. 721 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Jenkins v. American Express Financial Corp. 721 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 2006
Jenkins v. American Express Financial Corp. 721 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 2006
Johnson v. Walch & Walch, Inc. 696 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Johnson v. Walch & Walch, Inc. 696 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Brown v. National American University 686 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Brown v. National American University 686 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
We view the findings of the commissioner’s representative in the light most favorable to the decision and “will not disturb them as long as there is evidence that reasonably tends to sustain those findings.”
Bray v. Dogs & Cats Ltd. (1997) 679 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Bray v. Dogs & Cats Ltd. (1997) 679 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
ANALYSIS I. Misconduct On appeal, “we review the commissioner’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the commissioner’s decision and will not disturb them as long as there is evidence that reasonably tends to sustain those findings.”
Vargas v. Northwest Area Foundation 673 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 2004