Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Smith v. American Indian Chemical Dependency Diversion Project, 343 N.W.2d 43.

47 citing documents.

Todd Leuze, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Dependency Diversion Project , (affirming misconduct determination where relator missed work while incarcerated for unpaid fines); see also Winkler v. Park Refuse Serv., Inc., d 120, 123-24 (Minn. App. 1985) (affirming misconduct determination where relator’s absence from work was because of his arrest).2
Farah M. Muse, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Dependency Diversion Project
Hussein Elseweissy, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Dependency Diversion Project
Yer Vue, Relator v. Surdyk's Flights Inc. – Surdyk's Flights Wine Market and Bar, Department of Employment and … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Yer Vue, Relator v. Surdyk's Flights Inc. – Surdyk's Flights Wine Market and Bar, Department of Employment and … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Dependency Diversion Project
Cassandra Tart, Relator v. American Indian Community Development Corp., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Cassandra Tart, Relator v. American Indian Community Development Corp., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Dependency Diversion Project
Lonn H. Luhman, Relator v. Red Wing Shoe Co., Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lonn H. Luhman, Relator v. Red Wing Shoe Co., Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Dependency Diversion Project
Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc. 796 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2011
Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc. 796 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2011
Dependency Diversion Project, ).
PETRACEK v. University of Minnesota 780 N.W.2d 927 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
PETRACEK v. University of Minnesota 780 N.W.2d 927 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Dependency Diversion Project, (holding that when an employee simply failed to report to work due to incarceration, the employee committed employment misconduct).
Carlson v. DEPT. OF EMPLOY. & ECON. DEV. 747 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Carlson v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 747 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Carlson v. DEPT. OF EMPLOY. & ECON. DEV. 747 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Dependency Diversion Project
Carlson v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 747 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Dependency Diversion Project
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
Dependency Diversion Project, cf. Grushus v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg.
Jenkins v. AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL CORP. 702 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Jenkins v. AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL CORP. 702 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Dependency Diversion Project
Markel v. City of Circle Pines 465 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Markel v. City of Circle Pines 465 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Anderson v. Honeywell, Inc. 421 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Anderson v. Honeywell, Inc. 421 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Torgerson v. Goodwill Industries, Inc. 391 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Torgerson v. Goodwill Industries, Inc. 391 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See, (missing three days work because of incarceration for traffic offense constitutes misconduct even though employer was notified).
Gerr v. Target-Fridley 382 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gerr v. Target-Fridley 382 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“[t]he Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized absenteeism as misconduct.” Id.
McLean v. Plastics, Inc. 378 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
McLean v. Plastics, Inc. 378 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“[t]he Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized absenteeism as misconduct.” Id.
Duc Van Luu v. Carley Foundry Co. 374 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Duc Van Luu v. Carley Foundry Co. 374 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“[t]he Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized absenteeism as misconduct.” Id.
Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc. 361 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc. 361 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
We have held that an employer cannot “be expected to hold a job open indefinitely.”
Neihart v. Hayes Contractors, Inc. 357 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Neihart v. Hayes Contractors, Inc. 357 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
CRE Restaurant Co. v. State, Department of Economic Security 353 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
CRE Restaurant Co. v. State, Department of Economic Security 353 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Little v. Larson Bus Service 352 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Little v. Larson Bus Service 352 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Wallace W. Carlson Co. v. Hasler 351 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Wallace W. Carlson Co. v. Hasler 351 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Dependency Diversion Project
Hines v. Sheraton Ritz Hotel 349 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hines v. Sheraton Ritz Hotel 349 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Dependency Diversion Project
Blau v. Masters Restaurant Associates, Inc. 345 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Blau v. Masters Restaurant Associates, Inc. 345 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
ficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good-faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed “misconduct.” Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 375 , Group Health Plan