No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Court of Appeals affirmed the ULJ's determination that relator was discharged for employment misconduct and is ineligible for unemployment benefits. The court found substantial evidence supported the misconduct finding and no statutory exceptions applied.
In this certiorari appeal from the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ), relator challenges the ULJ's conclusion that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct. She argues that (1) the ULJ's determination that she was discharged for employment misconduct was not supported by substantial evidence, and (2) the ULJ erred by failing to consider any exceptions to ineligibility based on employment misconduct. Because we conclude that the ULJ's determination that relator was discharged for employment misconduct was supported by substantial evidence, and none of the statutory exceptions to ineligibility based employment misconduct apply, we affirm.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Appellant challenges a district court order affirming the decision of respondent commissioner, which disqualified appellant from certain employment positions for seven years based on a determination that she seriously maltreated a vulnerable adult. Appellant argues that the commissioner's maltreatment determination improperly relied on hearsay evidence in violation of her procedural-due-process rights and is not supported by substantial evidence. Appellant also argues that the disqualification should have been set aside. We affirm.
Appellant challenges the district court's grant of a harassment restraining order (HRO), arguing that his conduct was not objectively unreasonable and did not have a substantial adverse effect on respondent that was objectively reasonable. We affirm.
In this dispute related to a harassment restraining order (HRO), pro se appellant argues that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Because the district court did not err in determining that it had personal jurisdiction over appellant, we affirm.
In this appeal from an order denying a motion to reopen a harassment-restraining-order (HRO) proceeding pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion. Because the district court acted within its discretion by denying his motion to reopen, we affirm.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.