Minnesota State Law Library
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: Linda D. Houston, petitioner, Appellant, vs. International Data Transfer Corp., Respondent, Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent.
Read the opinion in this case at C1-00-2151
CITATION: 645 N.W.2d 144 (Minn. 2002)
Legal Issues in RELATOR'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
Did the Minnesota Legislature, in adding a definition of "misconduct" for purposes of disqualification from unemployment benefits to Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6, overrule this court's decision in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 204 N.W.2d 644 (1973)? The Court of Appeals held that the Tilseth misconduct standard is "no longer good law." Most Apposite Cases: Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 204 N.W.2d 644 (1973); Tuma v. Comm'r of Economic Security, 386 N.W.2d 702 (Minn. 1986); Wynkoop v. Carpenter, 574 N.W.2d 422, 425 (Minn. 1998); Current Technology Concepts, Inc., v. Irie Enterprises, Inc., 530 N.W.2d 539 (Minn. 1995); Statutes Relied Upon: Minn. Stat. § 268.095; Minn. Stat. § 645.16; Minn. Stat. § 645.17.
Legal Issues in RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER'S BRIEF & APPENDIX:
Whether the 1999 statutory definition of misconduct in Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6 (Supp. 1999) supersedes and repeals the 1973 definition adopted by the Supreme Court in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75, 204 N.W.2d 644, 646 (1973). The Court of Appeals decided in the affirmative. Most apposite statute: Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6 (Supp. 1999); Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(e) (Supp. 1999).
Legal Issues in APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF:
The "exclusive definition" clause of Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(e), does not provide the necessary clear evidence of legislative intent to overrule Tilseth. The Commissioner provides no reason, other than speculation, to disregard the available legislative history in interpreting the statute.