Legal Opinion
Peterson v. Northeast Bank—Minneapolis
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided October 11, 2011No. A11-92PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HUDSON, Judge.
Relator challenges the determination of an unemployment-law judge that she is ineligible for unemployment-insurance benefits. Because relator received a settlement payment for back pay that must be deducted from the benefits she had already received, we affirm.
FACTS
In August 1998, relator Tara Peterson began working as a full-time customer service representative at Northeast Bank (Northeast). In June 2006, after being diagnosed with an aggressive form of leukemia, Peterson took an unpaid leave to undergo a double stem cell transplant. In February 2007, after returning to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Skarhus v. Davanni's Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
- Mary Ruth Parrish v. Immanuel Medical CenterCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1996
- Robertson v. Special School District No. 1Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- Sykes v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Anthony Browne, Relator v. M. A. Mortenson Company, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic DevelopmentCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
- Michael Robin, Relator v. BHSI LLC, Department of Employment and Economic DevelopmentCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
- Robert R. Adams, Relator v. Select Communications, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic DevelopmentCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015