Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 521 So. 2d 815 - Lowery v. Whitfield

521 So. 2d 815 - Lowery v. Whitfield’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
December 2005
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Banks v. ADMINISTRATOR OF DEPT. OF EMPLOYMENT SEC. · Charbonnet v. Gerace · 134 So. 2d 384 - Turner v. Brown · 115 So. 2d 405 - King v. Brown · 471 So. 2d 909 - Jenkins v. Blache

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In proceedings involving unemployment compensation benefits, the findings of the Board of Review as to the facts, if supported by sufficient evidence and in the absence of fraud, are conclusive and the jurisdiction of the reviewing court is restricted to questions of law. Lowery v. Whitfield, 521 So.2d 815 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1988). * * * * * * A claimant shall be disqualified from benefits if she has been discharged for misconduct connected with her employment. LSA-R.S. 23:1601(2). Misconduct has been jurisprudentially interpreted to mean an act of willful or wanton disregard of the employer’s interest, a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules, a direct disregard of standards of behavior that the employer has a right to expect from his employee, or negligence in such a degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful interest or evil design, or show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employee’s duties and obligations to the employer. La. Off. of Fam. Serv. v. Adm’r., Emp. Sec. Off, 427 So.2d 539 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1983). The element of intentional wrongdoing must be present for an employee to be guilty of disqualifying misconduct. Charbonnet v. Gerace, 457 So.2d 676 (La.1984). Unsatisfactory work, without the intent to do wrong, is not misconduct under LSA-R.S. 23:1601. Id. The employer bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a discharge resulted from disqualifying misconduct. Banks v. Administrator of Dept. of Employment, ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.