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.
8 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1902–2003 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schmidt v. Independent School District No. 1, Aitkingreen2 sentences1987However, in Schmidt v. Independent School District No. 1, 349 N.W.2d 563, 568 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), we mandated the employment of a hearing officer, absent unusual or exceptional circumstances. 1987However, in Schmidt v. Independent School District No. 1, 349 N.W.2d 563, 568 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), we mandated the employment of a hearing officer, absent unusual or exceptional circumstances. | 2 | 2 |
Odenthal v. Minnesota Conference of Seventh-Day Adventistsgreen1 sentence2003See Odenthal I, 649 N.W.2d at 436 . | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Uelandgreen2 sentences1942As said in Hebranson v. Fairmont Creamery, 187 Minn. 260, 262 , 245 N. W. 138 , 139: “the nature of the employment is the test rather than the particular item of work he is doing when injured.” In Oberg v. DuBeau, 202 Minn. 476, 479 , 279 N. W. 221, 223 , we said: “The whole character of Oberg’s employment must be looked to to determine whether he was a farm laborer.” In determining whether or not an employe was a domestic servant, this court in Anderson v. Ueland, 197 Minn. 518, 523 , 267 N. W. 517, 519, 927 , said: “The test is the nature of the employment and its relation to the home.” Appl 1942As said in Hebranson v. Fairmont Creamery, 187 Minn. 260, 262 , 245 N. W. 138 , 139: “the nature of the employment is the test rather than the particular item of work he is doing when injured.” In Oberg v. DuBeau, 202 Minn. 476, 479 , 279 N. W. 221, 223 , we said: “The whole character of Oberg’s employment must be looked to to determine whether he was a farm laborer.” In determining whether or not an employe was a domestic servant, this court in Anderson v. Ueland, 197 Minn. 518, 523 , 267 N. W. 517, 519, 927 , said: “The test is the nature of the employment and its relation to the home.” Appl | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oberg v. Dubeau
neutral
2 sentences1962One continues a farm laborer and the. other does not become one.” In Hebranson v. Fairmont Creamery, 187 Minn. 260, 262 , 245 N.W. 138, 139 , we said: “* * * the nature of the employment is the test rather than the particular item of work he is doing when injured.” In Oberg v. DuBeau, 202 Minn. 476, 479 , 279 N. W. 221, 223 , we said: “* * * The whole character of Oberg’s employment must be looked to to determine whether he was a farm laborer.” Relator contends that the commission improperly held that he was a commercial thresherman or corn cutter within the definition in Minn. St. 176.011, su 1962One continues a farm laborer and the. other does not become one.” In Hebranson v. Fairmont Creamery, 187 Minn. 260, 262 , 245 N.W. 138, 139 , we said: “* * * the nature of the employment is the test rather than the particular item of work he is doing when injured.” In Oberg v. DuBeau, 202 Minn. 476, 479 , 279 N. W. 221, 223 , we said: “* * * The whole character of Oberg’s employment must be looked to to determine whether he was a farm laborer.” Relator contends that the commission improperly held that he was a commercial thresherman or corn cutter within the definition in Minn. St. 176.011, su | 2 | 1942–1962 |
Hebranson v. Fairmont Creamery
neutral
2 sentences1962One continues a farm laborer and the. other does not become one.” In Hebranson v. Fairmont Creamery, 187 Minn. 260, 262 , 245 N.W. 138, 139 , we said: “* * * the nature of the employment is the test rather than the particular item of work he is doing when injured.” In Oberg v. DuBeau, 202 Minn. 476, 479 , 279 N. W. 221, 223 , we said: “* * * The whole character of Oberg’s employment must be looked to to determine whether he was a farm laborer.” Relator contends that the commission improperly held that he was a commercial thresherman or corn cutter within the definition in Minn. St. 176.011, su 1962One continues a farm laborer and the. other does not become one.” In Hebranson v. Fairmont Creamery, 187 Minn. 260, 262 , 245 N.W. 138, 139 , we said: “* * * the nature of the employment is the test rather than the particular item of work he is doing when injured.” In Oberg v. DuBeau, 202 Minn. 476, 479 , 279 N. W. 221, 223 , we said: “* * * The whole character of Oberg’s employment must be looked to to determine whether he was a farm laborer.” Relator contends that the commission improperly held that he was a commercial thresherman or corn cutter within the definition in Minn. St. 176.011, su | 2 | 1942–1962 |
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.
green
1 sentence2002In many jurisdictions, courts have recognized an exception to the doctrine of employment at will, allowing a cause of action when the employee is wrongfully discharged. 11 In Phipps, 396 N.W.2d at 590-94 , the court of appeals recognized an exception to the doctrine of employment at will when an employee is terminated for refusing to engage in unlawful conduct. 12 After we *352 granted review in Phipps, but before release of our decision, the legislature enacted the Whistleblower Act, and we no longer had before us the policy question of whether Minnesota should join the majority of states tha | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.
green
1 sentence2002Phipps, 408 N.W.2d at 571 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Peterson v. Farmers State Bank
neutral
2 sentences1932Austin v. Leonard, Crossett & Riley, Inc. 177 Minn. 503 , 225 N. W. 428 ; Peterson v. Farmers State Bank, 180 Minn. 40 , 230 N. W. 124 . 1932Austin v. Leonard, Crossett & Riley, Inc. 177 Minn. 503 , 225 N. W. 428 ; Peterson v. Farmers State Bank, 180 Minn. 40 , 230 N. W. 124 . | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Austin v. Leonard, Crossett & Riley, Inc.
green
2 sentences1932Austin v. Leonard, Crossett & Riley, Inc. 177 Minn. 503 , 225 N. W. 428 ; Peterson v. Farmers State Bank, 180 Minn. 40 , 230 N. W. 124 . 1932Austin v. Leonard, Crossett & Riley, Inc. 177 Minn. 503 , 225 N. W. 428 ; Peterson v. Farmers State Bank, 180 Minn. 40 , 230 N. W. 124 . | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Winters v. City of Duluth
green
2 sentences1902Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , 84 N. W. 788 . 1902Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , 84 N. W. 788 . | 1 | 1902–1902 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.