Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 268.031 (2026)

Standard Of Proof; Statutory Interpretation And Application

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Standard of proof.

All issues under the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Law are determined by a preponderance of the evidence.

Subd. 2.Statutory application.

This chapter is remedial in nature and must be applied in favor of awarding unemployment benefits. Any legal conclusion that results in an applicant being ineligible for unemployment benefits must be fully supported by the facts. In determining eligibility or ineligibility for benefits, any statutory provision that would preclude an applicant from receiving benefits must be narrowly construed.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 64 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case: Nina Wilson v. Mortg. Resource Ctr., Inc., Dep't of Emp. & Econ. Dev., 888 N.W.2d 452 (Minn. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nina Wilson v. Mortg. Resource Ctr., Inc., Dep't of Emp. & Econ. Dev., 888 N.W.2d 452 (Minn. 2016). · cites it 19× “” Minn. Stat. § 268.031 , subd. 2 (2016). This provision of the statute also states that “[i]n determining eligibility or ineligibility for benefits, any statutory provision that would preclude an applicant from receiving benefits must be narrowly construed.”

Haugen v. Superior Dev., Inc., 819 N.W.2d 715 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “” Minn.Stat. § 268.031, subd. 2 (2010). In contrast, the statute is not meant to benefit employers specifically.”

Sykes v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 789 N.W.2d 253 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 268.031, subd. 2 (Supp.2009).”

Rowan v. Dream It, Inc., 812 N.W.2d 879 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 268.031, subd. 2 (2010). Rowan was an employee of Dream It from September 2006 until November 2010.”

Halvorson v. Cnty. of Anoka, 780 N.W.2d 385 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “In ascertaining the meaning of a statute, the court seeks to effectuate the intention of the legislature. Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2008). The unemployment-insurance scheme is for the benefit of persons attached to the labor market but unemployed through no fault of their own.”

Jennifer White, Relator v. Univ. of Minnesota Physicians Corp., Dep't of Emp. & Econ. Dev., 875 N.W.2d 351 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “”- Minn.Stat. § 268.031, subd; 2 (2014). “[Ajny statutory provision that would preclude an applicant from receiving benefits must be narrowly construed.”

Irvine v. St. John's Lutheran Church of Mound, 779 N.W.2d 101 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “While Irvine also cites the provisions in Minn.Stat. § 268.031, subd. 2 (Supp.2009), which codify the remedial purpose of the statute and the narrow construction of provisions that would preclude an applicant from receiving benefits, that statutory provision is effective August…”

Neumann v. Dep't of Emp. & Econ. Dev., 844 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “1989); see also Minn.Stat. § 268.031, subd. 2 (2012) (“[A]ny statutory provision that would preclude an applicant from receiving [unemployment] benefits must be narrowly construed.”

Van de Werken v. Bell & Howell, LLC, 834 N.W.2d 220 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 268.031, subd. 2 (2012); see Stagg v.”

Patrick Hammer Fay, Relator v. Dep't of Emp. & Econ. Dev., 860 N.W.2d 385 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). “§ 268.031, subd. 2 (2014) (“This chapter is remedial in nature and must be applied in favor of awarding unemployment benefits.”

Wiley v. Robert Half Int'l, Inc., 834 N.W.2d 567 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “See Minn.Stat. § 268.031, subd. 2 (stating that the chapter “must be applied in favor of awarding unemployment benefits”).”

Thao v. Command Ctr., Inc., 824 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “” Minn. Stat. § 268.031 , subd. 2 (2010). However, there is “no presumption of entitlement or nonentitlement to unemployment benefits” and “equitable or common law denial or allowance of unemployment benefits” is not permitted.”

Show all 64 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.