Olson v. Job Service North Dakota

39 Citing cases

  1. Clausnitzer v. Tesoro Ref. & Mktg. Co.

    820 N.W.2d 665 (N.D. 2012)   Cited 3 times

    [¶ 14] Another North Dakota case provides some helpful analogies. In Olson v. Job Serv. North Dakota, 379 N.W.2d 285, 286 (N.D.1985), an employee allegedly signed an agreement with her employer “to refrain from the consumption of alcohol, both on and off the job.” The employer terminated the employee after learning she had been involved in a car accident with her own vehicle after she had “drank approximately two beers” during nonworking hours, and the employee was subsequently denied unemployment benefits.

  2. Brunsoman v. Scarlett

    465 N.W.2d 162 (N.D. 1991)   Cited 18 times
    Treating an appeal from an interlocutory partial summary judgment order as an appeal from the final judgment

    Attempted appeals from orders for judgment or memorandum decisions, which are generally interlocutory and not appealable, will be treated as appeals from subsequently entered and consistent final judgments, if they appear in the record. E.g., Olson v. Job Service North Dakota, 379 N.W.2d 285, 287 (N.D. 1985). The partial summary judgment in this case, although interlocutory and not appealable when entered without a Rule 54(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., certification, is reviewable in an appeal from the final judgment entered on the jury verdict.

  3. Medcenter One v. Job Service N.D

    410 N.W.2d 521 (N.D. 1987)   Cited 21 times
    Affirming finding nurse's discussion of her personal life with a patient, following a warning that such behavior would result in termination, was misconduct

    However, disqualification does not result from mere insufficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance due to inability or incapacity, isolated instances of inadvertency or ordinary negligence, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion. Skjefte v. Job Service North Dakota, 392 N.W.2d 815, 817 (N.D. 1986). The parties disagree on the applicable standard of review for misconduct. Krein contends it is ordinarily a question of fact, citing Blueshield v. Job Service North Dakota, 392 N.W.2d 70 (N.D. 1986). Medcenter One argues it is a question of law, citing Olson v. Job Service North Dakota, 379 N.W.2d 285 (N.D. 1985). Like most administrative determinations, misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law. See Skjefte, supra, 392 N.W.2d at 818.

  4. Blueshield v. Job Service North Dakota

    392 N.W.2d 70 (N.D. 1986)   Cited 18 times
    In Blueshield v. Job Service North Dakota, 392 N.W.2d 70, 71 (N.D. 1986), we affirmed Job Service's determination of misconduct when a plant employee responded to some remarks by a co-worker by pushing him while in the work area.

    The term "misconduct" is not defined in the North Dakota Unemployment Compensation statutes. Olson v. Job Service North Dakota, 379 N.W.2d 285, 287 (N.D. 1985). It is established in North Dakota that "misconduct": "`. . . is limited to conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to his employer.

  5. Federal Sav. Loan Ins. Corp. v. Albrecht

    379 N.W.2d 266 (N.D. 1986)   Cited 14 times

    Section 28-27-02 does not provide for an appeal from a memorandum decision, Chas. F. Ellis Agency, 214 N.W.2d at 509. However, on the basis of our decision in Olson v. Job Service, 379 N.W.2d 285 (N.D. 1985), because the judgment entered on March 13, 1985, carries out and is consistent with the memo signed by the court and the order for judgment signed by the court, we shall treat this appeal as an appeal from the judgment and, accordingly, we will discuss the merits of the appeal. On March 9, 1982, the Albrechts executed a promissory note for $40,000 in favor of First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Grand Forks and Minot (FFSLA).

  6. Schlittenhart v. N. Dakota Dep't of Transp.

    2015 N.D. 179 (N.D. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    See Rist v. N.D. Dep't of Transp., 2003 ND 113, ¶ 1 n. 1, 665 N.W.2d 45; Sowatzki v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bur., 1997 ND 137, ¶¶ 10–11, 567 N.W.2d 189. “[A]n administrative agency appeal from an order is properly before this Court if the record contains a judgment consistent with the order.” Rist, at ¶ 1 n. 1 (citing Olson v. Job Serv. North Dakota, 379 N.W.2d 285, 287 (N.D.1985)). [¶ 9] Here Schlittenhart filed her initial notice of appeal from the district court's June 2014 order on July 21, 2014.

  7. State v. Schneider

    745 N.W.2d 368 (N.D. 2008)   Cited 4 times

    We have stated an appeal from an order is properly before this Court if the record contains a consistent judgment. Olson v. Job Serv. North Dakota, 379 N.W.2d 285, 287 (N.D. 1985). On June 18, 2007, the district court entered a judgment consistent with its earlier order.

  8. Rist v. North Dakota Department of Transportation

    2003 N.D. 113 (N.D. 2003)   Cited 21 times
    In Rist, a deputy observed a man slumped behind the steering wheel of a parked, non-running vehicle and decided to perform a welfare check.

    We have stated an administrative agency appeal from an order is properly before this Court if the record contains a judgment consistent with the order. Olson v. Job Serv. North Dakota, 379 N.W.2d 285, 287 (N.D. 1985). On December 10, 2002, the district court entered a judgment consistent with its earlier order.

  9. State v. Keilen

    2002 N.D. 133 (N.D. 2002)   Cited 12 times
    Holding the community caretaking exception did not apply to an apartment search when officers arrived and did not see a disturbance or anyone in need of assistance

    II [¶ 7] The right of appeal is statutory. First American Bank West v. Berdahl, 556 N.W.2d 63, 63 n. 1 (N.D. 1996); Olson v. Job Service North Dakota, 379 N.W.2d 285, 287 (N.D. 1985). Section 29-28-06 of the North Dakota Century Code specifies a defendant may appeal "[a] verdict of guilty; . . . [a] final judgment of conviction; . . . [a]n order refusing a motion in arrest of judgment; . . . [a]n order denying a motion for a new trial; or . . . [a]n order made after judgment affecting any substantial right of the party.

  10. Meyer v. Maus

    2001 N.D. 87 (N.D. 2001)   Cited 10 times
    Listing the elements a plaintiff must show to establish a breach of fiduciary duty

    The plaintiffs' appeal is timely under N.D.R.App.P. 4(a). This Court has jurisdiction under N.D. Const. art. VI, §§ 2 and 6, N.D.C.C. § 28-27-01, and Olson v. Job Serv., 379 N.W.2d 285, 287 (N.D. 1985) (treating appeal from order as appeal from subsequently entered consistent judgment). II