Burch v. Bassett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he standard of review to be followed in such cases is clear. We do not conduct a de novo review in appeals from the Board of Review. Snyder v. Dir., 81 Ark. App. 262 , 101 S.W.3d 270 (2003). In appeals of unemployment-compensation cases, we instead review the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board of Review’s findings. Id. The findings of fact made by the Board of Review are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence; even when there is evidence on which the Board of Review might have reached a different decision, the scope of judicial review is limited to a determination of whether the Board of Review could have reasonably reached its decision based on the evidence before it. Id. If fair-minded persons could reach the Board of Review’s conclusions on the same evidence, then we must affirm its decision. Id. Substantial evidence is such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Barnard v. Dir., 2013 Ark. App. 143 , at 2, 2013 WL 749806 (quoting Valentine v. Dir., 2012 Ark. App. 612 , at 3, 2012 WL 5358345 ). It is also clear that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony are matters to be resolved by the Board of Review. Barnard, supra. Like a jury, an administrative body is free to ^believe or disbelieve the testimony of any witness. Gunter v. Dir., 82 Ark. App. 346 , 107 S.W.3d 902 (2003).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fowlkes v. Director, Department of Workforce Services