Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 268.10 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Repealed, 1996 c 417 s 32]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 83
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1943–2023 · leading case: Lolling v. Midwest Patrol, 545 N.W.2d 372 (Minn. 1996).
Lolling v. Midwest Patrol, 545 N.W.2d 372 (Minn. 1996). “The Commissioner of Economic Security (commissioner) appeals from a decision of the court of appeals holding that under Minn. Stat. § 268.10 , subd. 1(d) (1992), which requires an employer to raise a known issue of disqualification within seven days of the mailing of the notice…”
Nieszner v. Minnesota Dep't of Jobs & Training, 499 N.W.2d 832 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). “See Minn.Stat. § 268.10, subd. 2(3) (1990). Employer did not appeal the initial determination.”
Baldinger Baking Co. v. Stepan, 354 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). “Minn.Stat. § 268.10, subd. 2(3). Because the order was allegedly mishandled by a bookkeeper, the management of Baldinger was not aware of the claim and no appeal was filed.”
Cole v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 72 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). “She argues, however, that the notice of her appeal rights was insufficient under the requirements of Minn.Stat. § 268.10, subd. 2(3) and that the defective notice violated her rights to due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Schulte v. Transp. Unlimited, Inc., 354 N.W.2d 830 (Minn. 1984). “*832 On July 14, 1983, the commissioner denied Schulte’s request to reopen because it was not made within the statutory time limit for appeals, Minn.Stat. § 268.10, subd. 5 (1982), and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”
Erickson v. Super Valu, 343 N.W.2d 698 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). “In the memorandum attached to his order, the commissioner’s representative gave his reasons for denying reconsideration and stated that Minn.Stat. § 268.10, subd. 2(4), does not provide another appeal procedure.”
Youa True Vang v. A-1 Maint. Serv., 376 N.W.2d 479 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “Minn.Stat. § 268.10, subd. 5 (1984), authorizes the Commissioner to remand for additional testimony.”
Neeland v. Clearwater Mem'l Hosp., 257 N.W.2d 366 (Minn. 1977). “The hospital then appealed again, this time to the commissioner of the department of employment services as provided for by § 268.10, subd. 5. On May 21, 1976, a duly authorized representative of the commissioner set aside the appeal tribunal’s decision and instead found that…”
LaSalle Cartage Co., Inc. v. Hampton, 362 N.W.2d 337 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “The director determined that the first two issues, having to do with separation, involved identical fact situations and common issues with respect to the 22 claimants and therefore should be consolidated in accordance with Minn.Stat. § 268.10, subd. 3 (Supp.1983).”
Geo. A. Hormel & Co. v. Asper, 428 N.W.2d 47 (Minn. 1988). “Minn. Stat. § 268.10 , subds. 5 and 6. We can find no abuse of that discretion here.”
Jeffers v. Convoy Co., 650 F. Supp. 315 (D. Minnesota 1986). “” The referee’s decision is appealable to the commissioner and the commissioner’s decision is reviewable by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.”
Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 N.W.2d 50 (Minn. 1995). “Minn.Stat. § 268.10, subd. 5 (1992) authorizes the commissioner or the commissioner’s representative to “affirm, modify or set aside any finding of fact or decision, or both, of the referee on the basis of the evidence previously submitted ⅜ * ⅜.”
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.