Legal Opinion
Brown v. Tonka Corp.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided July 26, 1994No. C5-94-487PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HARTEN, Judge.
In challenging summary judgment, appellant employer contends that a revised company vacation policy did not entitle respondents to the vacation benefits they claim in this action. The trial court did not err in determining that respondents were entitled to their 1991 vacation benefits. We affirm.
FACTS
Respondents Gary D. Brown and Rhonda J. Brandt are former employees of appellant Tonka Corporation. In 1991, the company closed its Minnesota operations and terminated respondents’ employment at the close of business on December 31, 1991. Brown had worked for Tonka since…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Pine River State Bank v. MettilleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Hunt v. IBM Mid America Employees Federal Credit UnionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Wartnick v. Moss & BarnettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Lee v. Fresenius Medical Care, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- Kvidera v. Rotation Engineering & Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005
- Simons v. Midwest Telephone Sales & Service, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2006
- Meyer v. Best Western Seville Plaza HotelCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1997
- Hayes v. K-Mart Corp.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.