Legal Opinion

Turnquist v. Amoco Oil Co.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 16, 1986No. C7-86-1062PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

RANDALL, Judge.

The Commissioner’s representative denied relator’s request for a remand to introduce additional evidence, and determined that he should return unemployment benefits which he had already received. We affirm.

FACTS

Relator Donald Turnquist had been employed as a fuel oil truck driver for 15 years when he was discharged by Amoco Oil Company on October 28, 1985, for, according to Amoco, violating company rules.

At the time of Turnquist’s employment, Amoco had a specific written policy indicating the procedures drivers should follow in the event of a fuel spill. If a portion of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
  2. Nyberg v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
  3. Drellack v. Inter-County Community Council, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
  4. Jeane Thorne Temporary Service, Inc. v. ElliottCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  5. Schultz v. MacHovec Food MarketCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Goodwin v. BPS Guard Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
  2. Wetterhahn v. Kimm Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988
  3. Wetterhahn v. Kimm Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API