Jackson v. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER SERVICES
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2006, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Kennedy v. American Paper Recycling Corp. (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
- Management Five, Inc. v. Commissioner of Jobs & Training (Minn. Ct. App. 1992)
- Smith v. Masterson Personnel, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1992)
- Baldinger Baking Co. v. Stepan (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
- Kenzie v. Dalco Corp. (Minn. 1976)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This matter is before the court to review a decision of the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Manpower Services affirming the appeal tribunal’s order dismissing as untimely claimant’s appeal from the claims deputy’s determination that he was disqualified from receiving benefits for 2 weeks.
Minn. St. 268.10, subd. 2(4), provides in part that the determination of the claims deputy shall become final unless the aggrieved party files his appeal within 7 days after the delivery of the notice of determination, or within 7 days after the notice has been mailed to his last known address. Under § 268.04, subd. 15, the postmark determines the date of filing if an aggrieved party mails his appeal.
The tribunal had before it a copy of the notice of determination mailed to claimant which showed it was mailed or delivered May 11, *501 1971, and the postmark on claimant’s notice of appeal which was dated May 19, 1971. It found that claimant filed his notice of appeal 1 day after the time provided by § 268.10, subd. 2(4), had expired. The commissioner affirmed.
We hold that the evidence supports these findings and that under § 268.10, subd. 2(4), the appeal was untimely. Claimant contends that the limitation period did not begin to run until he received the notice of determination in the mail. We do not agree. The notice clearly informed claimant that the date of delivery was May 11, 1971, and that he had 7 days thereafter in which to file an appeal.
Claimant asserts that he actually mailed his notice of appeal on May 17, 1971. However, he failed to attend the hearing afforded him to present that evidence. Nevertheless, had he done so, it is not clear that he was entitled to relief. Section 268.10, subd. 2(4), does not explicitly au-. thorize the appeals tribunal to excuse a delay “due to compelling good cause” as § 268.10, subd. 2(1), provides. That is an issue we need not decide in these proceedings.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.