Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Midland Electric, Inc. v. Johnson, 372 N.W.2d 810.

32 citing documents.

Steven A. Franklin, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Whether an employee has been discharged or voluntarily quit is a question of fact.” Midland Elec.
Destiny Walker, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
4 “Whether an employee has been discharged or voluntarily quit is a question of fact.” Midland Elec.
Carol Johnson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
10 Johnson relies on a previous unemployment-benefits appeal where this court determined that an employee’s “failure to return to work due to a reasonable belief that [the employee] has been discharged does not constitute a voluntary termination.” Midland Elec.
Kasele Howard, Relator v. Family First Home Care, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kasele Howard, Relator v. Family First Home Care, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Generally, “[w]hether an employee has been discharged or voluntarily quit is a question of fact.” Midland Elec.
Amanulah Dharsee, Relator v. Rubber Industries, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Amanulah Dharsee, Relator v. Rubber Industries, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Generally, “[w]hether an employee has been discharged or voluntarily quit is a question of fact.” Midland Elec.
Robert S. Paxton, Relator v. Ind. School District 047, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Robert S. Paxton, Relator v. Ind. School District 047, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jami Sternquist, Relator v. PAL Management, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jami Sternquist, Relator v. PAL Management, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC 814 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC 814 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Nichols v. Reliant Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc. 720 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Nichols v. Reliant Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc. 720 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
‘Whether an employee has been discharged or voluntarily quit is a question of fact.” Midland Elec.
Goodwin v. BPS Guard Services, Inc. 524 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Goodwin v. BPS Guard Services, Inc. 524 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp. 520 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp. 520 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Norman v. Campbell-Logan Bindery, Inc., Midland Elec.
Souder v. Ziegler, Inc., Buhl Location 424 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Souder v. Ziegler, Inc., Buhl Location 424 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Midland Electric, the employer had become increasingly dissatisfied with the employee’s work, and had told the employee upon several occasions that he would be discharged if he did not speed up.
Lilledahl v. Process Displays Co. 413 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lilledahl v. Process Displays Co. 413 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Krantz v. Loxtercamp Transport, Inc. 410 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Krantz v. Loxtercamp Transport, Inc. 410 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
County Market v. Dahlen 396 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Midland Electric, Inc. v. *83 Johnson, the court applied the Hasler reasoning in a slightly different context, determining that an employee did not voluntarily quit his employment when he failed to appear for work due to a reasonable belief that he had been discharged.
Gonsior v. Alternative Staffing, Inc. 390 N.W.2d 801 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gonsior v. Alternative Staffing, Inc. 390 N.W.2d 801 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hendricks & Lamers, Ltd. v. Vadnais 389 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hendricks & Lamers, Ltd. v. Vadnais 389 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Since the question whether an employee has quit or was discharged is one of fact, Midland Electric, this court’s review is limited to determinating whether there is evidence reasonably tending to sustain the Commissioner’s findings; if so, they will not be disturbed.
Dahl v. Del Dee Foods, Inc. 378 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Dahl v. Del Dee Foods, Inc. 378 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
We note in Midland Electric, (Minn.Ct.App.