Briefs filed in Tara L. Bray, Relator, vs. Dogs & Cats Limited (1997), Respondent, Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Minnesota State Law Library

Ask a Law Librarian

Home Research Legal Topics Skills Center Services About Us

Minnesota Appellate Court Issues in Briefs

Shown here are the statements of the issues presented for review by the appellate courts in the briefs filed for this case. The entire brief set can be found at the State Law Library and other libraries around the state. See Minnesota Appellate Court Briefs Collection for more information.

CASE NAME:  Tara L. Bray, Relator, vs. Dogs & Cats Limited (1997), Respondent, Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
        Read the opinion in this case at A03-1413
        CITATION:  679 N.W.2d 182 (Minn.App. 2004)

Legal Issues in RELATOR'S BRIEF:
  • Whether the Commissioner erred in denying Ms. Bray unemployed benefits based on alleged employment misconduct. The Commissioner denied Ms. Bray unemployment benefits, ruling that she was disqualified based on employment misconduct. Apposite statutes and cases: Minn. Stat. § 268.905, subd. 6 (2003) Frank v. Commissioner of Econ. Sec., No. C5-02-679 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) Judeh v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., No. C5-02-2061 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) Kartman v. Institute for Minnesota Archaelogy, Inc., No. C8-02-1891 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)

    Also Filed - RELATOR'S SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD

    Also Filed - RELATOR'S APPENDIX

    Legal Issues in RESPONDENT - COMMISSIONER'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:

  • Whether the record reasonably supports that Relator Tina L. Bray is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because Dogs & Cats Limited discharged her for employment misconduct. The commissioner's representative, Charles O. Green, decided that Dogs & Cats Limited discharged Tina L. Bray for employment misconduct, because she repeatedly violated company policies and procedures and failed to follow her district manager's direct requests. Most apposite statutes: Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6 (2002) Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6 (2003 Supp.) Most apposite cases, not to exceed four: Houston v. International Data Transfer Corp., 645 N.W. 2nd 144 (Minn. 2002) Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 2002) Tuff v. Knitcraft, 526 N.W.2d 50 (Minn. 1995)


  • Minnesota State Law Library: Issues in Briefs

    Please send suggestions to the Web Manager.