Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.green2 sentences2016In Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 806 (Minn. 2002), the Commissioner of Economic Security argued that the statutory definition was “less restrictive” than the Tilseth standard and that the statute therefore “superseded” the Tilseth standard. 2016In Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 806 (Minn. 2002), the Commissioner of Economic Security argued that the statutory definition was “less restrictive” than the Tilseth standard and that the statute therefore “superseded” the Tilseth standard. | 2 | 2 |
Windsperger v. Broadway Liquor Outletgreen2 sentences1999Oman reiterates the holding: Applying the Tilseth standard, the supreme court [in Windsperger ] has also held that “an isolated hotheaded incident which does not interfere with the employer’s business is not misconduct * * * justifying a denial of unemployment compensation benefits.” 375 N.W.2d at 536 (quoting Windsperger, 346 N.W.2d at 145 ). 1999Oman reiterates the holding: Applying the Tilseth standard, the supreme court [in Windsperger ] has also held that “an isolated hotheaded incident which does not interfere with the employer’s business is not misconduct * * * justifying a denial of unemployment compensation benefits.” 375 N.W.2d at 536 (quoting Windsperger, 346 N.W.2d at 145 ). | 1 | 2 |
Auger v. Gillette Co.green2 sentences1984Cloud State College, 309 Minn. 564 , 244 N.W.2d 635 (1976), expanded the definition of misconduct to include any actions that demonstrate a lack of concern for one’s job, and in Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Louise Lopez, 341 N.W.2d 294 (Minn.Ct.App., Dec. 14, 1983), we considered misconduct and reaffirmed the Tilseth rule in light of Auger v. Gillette Co., 303 N.W.2d 255 (Minn.1981). 1984Cloud State College, 309 Minn. 564 , 244 N.W.2d 635 (1976), expanded the definition of misconduct to include any actions that demonstrate a lack of concern for one’s job, and in Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Louise Lopez, 341 N.W.2d 294 (Minn.Ct.App., Dec. 14, 1983), we considered misconduct and reaffirmed the Tilseth rule in light of Auger v. Gillette Co., 303 N.W.2d 255 (Minn.1981). | 1 | 2 |
In Re Claim of Tilsethgreen2 sentences1984On the oth *45 er hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inad-vertencies 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 , 204 N.W.2d 644, 646 (1973) This court has applied the Tilseth standard in misconduct cases such as Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Lopez, 341 N.W.2d 294 (Minn.App.1983) and King v. Little Italy, 341 N.W.2d 896 (Minn.App.1984). 1984On the oth *45 er hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inad-vertencies 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 , 204 N.W.2d 644, 646 (1973) This court has applied the Tilseth standard in misconduct cases such as Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Lopez, 341 N.W.2d 294 (Minn.App.1983) and King v. Little Italy, 341 N.W.2d 896 (Minn.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Lopez
green
2 sentences1985This court adopted the Tilseth standard in Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Lopez, 341 N.W.2d 294 (Minn.Ct.App.1983). 1985This court adopted the Tilseth standard in Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Lopez, 341 N.W.2d 294 (Minn.Ct.App.1983). | 4 | 1984–1985 |
King v. Little Italy
green
2 sentences1984This court has applied the Tilseth standard in misconduct cases such as Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Lopez, 341 N.W.2d 294 (Minn.App.1983), and King v. Little Italy, 341 N.W.2d 896 (Minn.App.1984). 1984This court has applied the Tilseth standard in misconduct cases such as Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Lopez, 341 N.W.2d 294 (Minn.App.1983), and King v. Little Italy, 341 N.W.2d 896 (Minn.App.1984). | 2 | 1984–1984 |
Oman v. Daig Corp.
green
2 sentences1999Oman reiterates the holding: Applying the Tilseth standard, the supreme court [in Windsperger ] has also held that “an isolated hotheaded incident which does not interfere with the employer’s business is not misconduct * * * justifying a denial of unemployment compensation benefits.” 375 N.W.2d at 536 (quoting Windsperger, 346 N.W.2d at 145 ). 1999Oman reiterates the holding: Applying the Tilseth standard, the supreme court [in Windsperger ] has also held that “an isolated hotheaded incident which does not interfere with the employer’s business is not misconduct * * * justifying a denial of unemployment compensation benefits.” 375 N.W.2d at 536 (quoting Windsperger, 346 N.W.2d at 145 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co.
green
2 sentences1984On the oth *45 er hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inad-vertencies 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 , 204 N.W.2d 644, 646 (1973) This court has applied the Tilseth standard in misconduct cases such as Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Lopez, 341 N.W.2d 294 (Minn.App.1983) and King v. Little Italy, 341 N.W.2d 896 (Minn.App.1984). 1984On the oth *45 er hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inad-vertencies 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 , 204 N.W.2d 644, 646 (1973) This court has applied the Tilseth standard in misconduct cases such as Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Lopez, 341 N.W.2d 294 (Minn.App.1983) and King v. Little Italy, 341 N.W.2d 896 (Minn.App.1984). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Feia v. St. Cloud State College
green
2 sentences1984Cloud State College, 309 Minn. 564 , 244 N.W.2d 635 (1976), expanded the definition of misconduct to include any actions that demonstrate a lack of concern for one’s job, and in Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Louise Lopez, 341 N.W.2d 294 (Minn.Ct.App., Dec. 14, 1983), we considered misconduct and reaffirmed the Tilseth rule in light of Auger v. Gillette Co., 303 N.W.2d 255 (Minn.1981). 1984Cloud State College, 309 Minn. 564 , 244 N.W.2d 635 (1976), expanded the definition of misconduct to include any actions that demonstrate a lack of concern for one’s job, and in Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Louise Lopez, 341 N.W.2d 294 (Minn.Ct.App., Dec. 14, 1983), we considered misconduct and reaffirmed the Tilseth rule in light of Auger v. Gillette Co., 303 N.W.2d 255 (Minn.1981). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.