Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Obst v. Microtron, Inc., 614 N.W.2d 196.

32 citing documents.

Lisa Larkins, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
And the vital element of whistleblowing under Minnesota law is “the protection of the general public or, at least, some third person or persons.” Obst v. Microtron, Inc.
Debra Sakrison, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Id.; see, e.g., Obst v. Microtron, Inc. , (determining that report of safety concerns about windshield wipers did not implicate a violation of law and therefore wa s not protected under the MWA); (conc luding report of firefighters allegedly “showing up at fire calls while drun
Friedlander v. Edwards Lifesciences, LLC 900 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2017
Friedlander v. Edwards Lifesciences, LLC 900 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2017
Edwards Lifesciences bases this argument on our interpretation of the Act in Obst v. Microtron, Inc., in which we held that “good faith” requires a putative whistleblower to act with the purpose of exposing an illegality.
Julie Childs v. Fairview Health Services Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Julie Childs v. Fairview Health Services Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A report must be made for the “purpose of exposing an illegality.” Obst v. Microtron, Inc.
Nancy Salscheider v. Allina Health System d/b/a Allina Hospitals & Clinics Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Nancy Salscheider v. Allina Health System d/b/a Allina Hospitals & Clinics Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Cf. Obst v. Microtron, Inc., -03 (Minn. 2000) (holding that because the employer was already aware of the violation, the employee’s purpose 12 was not to expose an illegality or blow the whistle as “there was no whistle to blow,” and the employee’s report therefore did not fall within the MWA).
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 784 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 2010
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 784 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 2010
We have explained that the whistleblower statute “protects the conduct of a neutral party ‘who “blows the whistle” for the protection of the general public or, at the least, some third person or persons in addition to the whistleblower.’ ” Obst v. Microtron, Inc., (quoting Williams v. St.
Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLC 771 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLC 771 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
Obst v. Microtron, Inc., (concluding that a report that raised safety concerns about a windshield-wiper device did not allege illegal conduct necessary to support a whistleblower claim); (concluding that a report alleging that firefighters were “showing up at fire ca
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“While there need not be an actual violation of law, the reported conduct must at least implicate a violation of law.” Obst v. Microtron, Inc.
GRUNDTNER v. University of Minnesota 730 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
GRUNDTNER v. University of Minnesota 730 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Borgersen v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. 729 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Borgersen v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. 729 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
1(a) a “report of a suspected violation of federal or state law must implicate an actual federal or state law and not one that does not exist.” Obst v. Microtron, Inc., (“[T]o say that safety concerns are raised does not satisfy the requirement of the whistle-blower statute, that the employee’s reports must implicate a violation or suspected violation of a federal or state law or rule adopted pursuant to law.”).
Gee v. Minnesota State Colleges & Universities 700 N.W.2d 548 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Gee v. Minnesota State Colleges & Universities 700 N.W.2d 548 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Border State Bank of Greenbush v. Bagley Livestock Exchange, Inc. 690 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Border State Bank of Greenbush v. Bagley Livestock Exchange, Inc. 690 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Thompson v. Hughart 664 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Thompson v. Hughart 664 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 639 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2002
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 639 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2002
See Obst v. Microtron, Inc., Minn.Stat.
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2002
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2002
Id.; Obst v. Microtron, Inc., see also, Herman v. Dep’t of Justice, 193 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed.Cir.1999) (interpreting the federal Whistleblower Protection Act and holding that an employee could not have had a reasonable belief that an agency violated a law, rale, or regulation because the agency’s actions were trivial); Frederick
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 622 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 622 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Cokley v. City of Otsego 623 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Cokley v. City of Otsego 623 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Obst v. Microtron, Inc., (determining whether plaintiff reported a violation of law); (finding vague reports of reprehensible conduct, where no statute or rule is violated by such conduct, are not reports); Donahue v. Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A.