Legal Opinion

Brunello v. Mill City Auto Body

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided May 29, 1984No. C1-83-1771PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

LESLIE, Judge.

Relator Mill City Auto Body appeals the Commissioner’s representative’s decision affirming the referee’s decision awarding unemployment compensation benefits to claimant. We affirm.

FACTS

On June 1, 1983, Brunello was separated from employment as a bodyman and painter for appellant Mill City Auto Body (Mill City). He had been employed at Mill City since March 1981. On June 3, 1983, he filed a claim for unemployment benefits alleging involuntary termination by Mill City. He explained the reasons for his separation as follows:

The owner (Bill Dozal) (sic) and myself were…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lisa Marz v. Department of Employment ServicesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  2. Group Health Plan, Inc. v. LopezCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1983
  3. Ramirez v. Metro Waste Control CommissionCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1983
  4. Pichler v. Alter Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1976

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Green v. District of Columbia Department of Employment ServicesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
  2. Ginsberg v. Minnesota Department of Jobs & TrainingCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
  3. Haynes v. Director of LaborCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API