Abramson v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Abramson v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis

242 N.W.2d 77, 308 Minn. 453, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1790

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 16, 1976

Docket45826

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 242 N.W.2d 77 (Abramson v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abramson v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis, 242 N.W.2d 77, 308 Minn. 453, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1790 (Mich. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

*454 Per Curiam.

Writ of certiorari upon the relation of the employer to review a decision of the commissioner of employment services. The issue is whether claimant should be temporarily disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits on the ground that his discharge was for “misconduct” within the meaning of Minn. St. 268.09, subd. 1(1). The commissioner, reversing the appeal tribunal, held that claimant was not subject to any disqualification from receiving benefits. We affirm.

The commissioner found that employer discharged claimant from his job as a taxicab driver basically for his failure to report a flat-rate trip on his trip sheet and that claimant’s failure to report that trip was not deliberate or willful but was the result of ordinary negligence or inadvertence. We believe that the evidence justifies these findings, and the findings justify the conclusion that claimant was not disqualified for “misconduct,” that is, conduct evincing a willful or wanton disregard for the employer’s interests or conduct demonstrating a lack of concern by the employee for his job. See, Tilseth v. Midwest Lbr. Co. 295 Minn. 372, 204 N. W. 2d 644 (1973).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*454 Per Curiam.

Writ of certiorari upon the relation of the employer to review a decision of the commissioner of employment services. The issue is whether claimant should be temporarily disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits on the ground that his discharge was for “misconduct” within the meaning of Minn. St. 268.09, subd. 1(1). The commissioner, reversing the appeal tribunal, held that claimant was not subject to any disqualification from receiving benefits. We affirm.

The commissioner found that employer discharged claimant from his job as a taxicab driver basically for his failure to report a flat-rate trip on his trip sheet and that claimant’s failure to report that trip was not deliberate or willful but was the result of ordinary negligence or inadvertence. We believe that the evidence justifies these findings, and the findings justify the conclusion that claimant was not disqualified for “misconduct,” that is, conduct evincing a willful or wanton disregard for the employer’s interests or conduct demonstrating a lack of concern by the employee for his job. See, Tilseth v. Midwest Lbr. Co. 295 Minn. 372, 204 N. W. 2d 644 (1973).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 N.W.2d 77, 308 Minn. 453, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abramson-v-yellow-taxi-co-of-minneapolis-minn-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack