MARSHALL v. COM'R OF JOBS TRAINING

5 Citing cases

  1. OSTAPENKO v. DEPT OF EMPLOYMENT ECON

    No. A05-1850 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2006)

    We review a denial of Trade Act benefits in the same manner as we would a denial of state unemployment benefits. Marshall v. Comm'r of Jobs Training, 496 N.W.2d 841, 843 (Minn.App. 1993); Talberg v. Comm'r of Econ. Sec., 370 N.W.2d 686, 688 (Minn.App. 1985). In an appeal from a denial of unemployment benefits, we review the findings of the SURJ in the light most favorable to the decision and will not disturb the findings if reasonably sustained by the evidence in the record.

  2. Wilder v. Employment Sec. Comm. of N.C

    173 N.C. App. 429 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 1 times

    Our Courts have not previously addressed this statute and accompanying regulations and we look to jurisprudence from our sister states for guidance. In Marshall v. Com'r of Jobss&s Training, 496 N.W.2d 841, 843 (1993), the Minnesota Court of Appeals considered the issue of suitability of training for workers who already possessed advanced degrees. Marshall stated:

  3. Allen v. Department of Workforce Services

    112 P.3d 1238 (Utah Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 7 times
    Stating that an agency's findings of fact will only be overturned if they are not supported by substantial evidence, and that an agency's decisions applying facts to the law "`are [only] subject to judicial review to assure that they fall within the limits of reasonableness and rationality'"

    There is no dispute that Allen was not offered any position. Hence, reading the statutory and regulatory language together with the ordinary meaning of "available," we conclude that the Board erred in its construction of the regulation and ruling on this criterion. While we recognize that a court in another state has held differently, see Marshall v. Commissioner of Jobs Training, 496 N.W.2d 841 (Minn.Ct.App. 1993), we are not bound by that interpretation of this language, particularly where that court considered the meaning of "unavailable" more than the actual statutory language, see id. at 843. B. Benefit From Appropriate Training

  4. White v. State, Bd., Review

    700 So. 2d 929 (La. Ct. App. 1997)

    Applying section 2311(d), courts have determined that a denial of federal benefits under the Trade Act is reviewable in state court as if it had been a denial of conventional unemployment benefits. Marshall v. Commissioner of Jobs and Training, 496 N.W.2d 841, 843 (Minn.App. 1993); Talberg v. Commissioner of Economic Security, 370 N.W.2d 686, 688 (Minn.App. 1985); Skrundz v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security, 444 N.E.2d 1217, 1221 (Ind. App. 1 Dist. 1983). This section provides:

  5. Nevarre v. Unemployment Com. Bd. of Review

    675 A.2d 361 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1996)   Cited 2 times

    We also note that, while there is little precedent at all in the Commonwealth on TAA, as opposed to TRA, Wilson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 106 Pa. Commw. 306, 526 A.2d 452 (1987) being one of the few cases on the subject, the consideration of total cost as a factor in disapproving TAA training is not wholly without precedent. See Marshall v. Commissioner of Jobs and Training, 496 N.W.2d 841 (Minn.Ct.App. 1993) (senior financial analyst seeking more than $27,000 for law school attendance, where that "significant" cost itself was weighed, was properly denied TAA training benefits). Thus, we do not agree that the TAA unit or the referee erred in considering total training costs, or that training costs cannot be rejected as too expensive.