Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schulte v. Transportation Unlimited, Inc., 354 N.W.2d 830.

32 citing documents.

In the matter of a Potentially Dangerous Dog declaration involving a black, tan & white colored Caucasian Shepherd … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Furthermore, the supreme court held that notice is constitutionally adequate if it “communicate[s] the interest at stake.” Schulte v. Transportation Unlimited, Inc.
State of Minnesota, by Spring Valley Friends, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Spring Valley Friends relies on Schulte v. Transportation Unlimited, Inc., in support of the proposition that the right to appeal is a protected interest.
In re: New American Development Center Appeal of MDE-NPS January through April 2022 Claims Disallowance Decision in the … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Unl td., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Chue Her, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Shonwta D. Jackson, Minn. 2019
Unlimited, Inc., (holding that a letter failed to provide adequate notice when it did not inform the recipient of the consequences of a failure to appear).
Shonwta Demar Jackson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Eugene Boisson, Relator v. Shepard Parking, LLC, Transport Leasing Contract, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Eugene Boisson, Relator v. Shepard Parking, LLC, Transport Leasing Contract, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sherrie M. Aubin, Relator v. Family Dollar, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sherrie M. Aubin, Relator v. Family Dollar, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Godbout v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 827 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Godbout v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 827 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Commissioner of Natural Resources v. Nicollet County Public Water/Wetlands Hearings Unit 633 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Commissioner of Natural Resources v. Nicollet County Public Water/Wetlands Hearings Unit 633 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Appellants rely on Schulte v. Transportation Unltd., Inc., 835 (Minn.1984), that questioned whether a discharged employee was denied due process when a notice of appeal of his unemployment benefits failed to notify him that, if reversed, he would be liable for repayment of the benefits previously paid to him.
Matter of Linehan 557 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1996
Matter of Linehan 557 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1996
Cf. Schulte v. Transportation Unlimited, Inc., -35 (Minn.1984) (applying notice standards under the due process clauses of the Minnesota and United States Constitutions as a procedural safeguard for unemployment compensation recipients).
Matter of Kindt 542 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Matter of Kindt 542 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Schulte v. Transportation Unlimited, Inc., 835 (Minn.1984) (remanding for de novo consideration of the claimant’s reemployment insurance eligibility, despite his untimely appeal, because the agency violated the Due Process Clause by not informing him of the consequences of a proposed adverse action); d
Hein v. Gresen Division, Dana Corp. 538 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Hein v. Gresen Division, Dana Corp. 538 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(recognizing that reemployment insurance is an entitlement protected by procedural due process, which encompasses a right of adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard).
Nieszner v. Minnesota Department of Jobs & Training 499 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Nieszner v. Minnesota Department of Jobs & Training 499 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Schulte v. Transportation Unlimited, Inc.
State, Department of Public Safety v. ELK River Ready Mix Co. 430 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State, Department of Public Safety v. ELK River Ready Mix Co. 430 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Appellant argues under Schulte v. Transportation Unlimited, Inc., there is a constitutional requirement of notice.
In re the Disciplinary Action Against Wang 417 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In re the Disciplinary Action Against Wang 417 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
1487, 1493 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) (due process requires that deprivation of property be preceded by notice and opportunity to be heard); Schulte v. Transportation Unlimited, Inc., (notice must meaningfully inform persons so they can protect interests).
Seemann v. Little Crow Trucking 412 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Seemann v. Little Crow Trucking 412 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Schulte v. Transportation Unlimited, Inc.
Charson v. Temple Israel 405 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hough Transit, Ltd. v. Harig 373 N.W.2d 327 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hough Transit, Ltd. v. Harig 373 N.W.2d 327 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Schulte v. Transportation Unlimited, Inc.