Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc.

123 Citing cases

  1. Relator v. City of Duluth

    No. A22-1724 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2024)

    "The question of whether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies him or her from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law." Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452, 460 (Minn. 2016).

  2. Souter v. Fastenal Co.

    A17-0103 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2017)

    "The question of whether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies him or her from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law." Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452, 460 (Minn. 2016). Whether an employee committed a particular act is a question of fact. Skarhus v. Davanni's Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006).

  3. Field v. Casey's Servs. Co.

    No. A21-0227 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2021)

    Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d)(5) (2020); Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452, 460 (Minn. 2016).

  4. Brush v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc.

    A17-1326 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2018)

    "The question of whether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies him or her from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law." Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452, 460 (Minn. 2016). Whether an employee "committed a particular act is a question of fact."

  5. Shackelford v. Univ. of Minn.

    No. A22-1080 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2023)

    The statutory "definition of 'employment misconduct' is 'exclusive and no other definition applies.'" Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452, 458 (Minn. 2016) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(e) (2016)). "Because the statutory definition is exclusive, a prior common law standard that is incompatible with the statutory language is inapplicable." Id.

  6. Steiger v. Cub Foods

    No. A18-0900 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2019)

    "The question of whether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies him or her from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law." Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452, 460 (Minn. 2016). Whether an employee "committed a particular act is a question of fact."

  7. Davis v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers #292 Health Care Plan

    A17-2018 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2018)

    "The question of whether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies him or her from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law." Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452, 460 (Minn. 2016). Whether an employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.

  8. Hall v. City of Plainview

    954 N.W.2d 254 (Minn. 2021)   Cited 21 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding offer sufficiently definite where details provided included specific information and procedures by which employees could comprehend and take advantage of employer policy

    "If the meaning of a statute is unambiguous, the plain language of the statute controls." Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc. , 888 N.W.2d 452, 458 (Minn. 2016). Minnesota Statutes § 181.13(a) provides:

  9. In re Mohamoud

    No. A23-1584 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2024)

    "[Appellate courts] review the ULJ's findings of fact in the light most favorable to the decision and will not disturb those findings as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them." Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452, 460 (Minn. 2016) (quotations omitted).

  10. Royer v. Inventiv Health, Inc.

    No. A22-0806 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2023)

    We view the ULJ's factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision, defer to the ULJ's credibility determinations, do not reweigh conflicting evidence, and uphold factual findings if substantial evidence in the record supports them. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2022); Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452, 460 (Minn. 2016); Skarhus v. Davanni's Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn.App. 2006). However, we review questions of law regarding employment misconduct de novo.