Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Roloff v. Commr. of the Dept. of Employ

668 N.W.2d 12 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Roloff v. Commr. of the Dept. of Employ

4 Citing cases

  1. Posey v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

    879 N.W.2d 662 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 22 times
    Noting reason for employee's separation from employment is fact question

    “Whether an appellant was properly disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation is a mixed question of law and fact.” Roloff v. Comm'r of Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev., 668 N.W.2d 12, 14 (Minn.App.2003), review denied (Minn. Nov. 18, 2003). The question of whether an employee was discharged or voluntarily quit is a question of fact.

  2. BISHOP v. DEPT. OF EMPLOYMENT ECO. DEV

    No. A07-668 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 27, 2008)

    The determination that a person is ineligible to receive unemployment compensation is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Roloff v. Comm'r of Dep't of Employment Econ. Dev., 668 N.W.2d 12, 14 (Minn.App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov. 18, 2003). "The unemployment compensation statute is remedial in nature and must be liberally construed to effectuate the public policy set out in Minn. Stat. § 268.03," and we have stated that "this policy urges us to narrowly construe the disqualification provisions."

  3. Huisman v. Total Card, Inc.

    No. A06-1002 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 22, 2007)

    Id. Whether relator quit for good reason caused by her employer is a question of law that we review de novo. Hein v. Precision Assocs., Inc., 609 N.W.2d 916, 918 (Minn.App. 2000). Whether the ULJ correctly determined that relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits after January 24 is also a question of law that we review de novo. Roloff v. Comm'r of Dep't of Employment Econ. Dev., 668 N.W.2d 12, 14 (Minn.App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov. 18, 2003).

  4. Garcia v. Alstom Signaling

    729 N.W.2d 30 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 2 times
    Applying section 268.085, subdivision 3

    The determination that a person is ineligible to receive unemployment compensation is a question of law, which we review de novo. Roloff v. Comm'r of Dep't of Employment Econ. Dev., 668 N.W.2d 12, 14 (Minn.App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov. 18, 2003). "The unemployment compensation statute is remedial in nature and must be liberally construed to effectuate the public policy set out in Minn.Stat. § 268.03. . . .