99 So. 2d 387 - Lacombe v. Sharp’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 1990
20 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 158 Pa. Super. 548 - Sturdevant Unemployment Compensation Case · Burge v. Administrator, Division of Employment Security of the Department of Labor · 162 Pa. Super. 183 - Mee's Bakery, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · 119 Ind. App. 191 - Hollingsworth Tool Works v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) If the administrator finds that he has been discharged for misconduct connected with his employment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Our appellate courts have repeatedly recognized that judicial review of the findings of the Board of Review of the facts as presented to it upon a claim for unemployment compensation is expressly restricted by legislative mandate, LSA-R.S. 23:1634, and that where fraud is not an issue the courts are concerned only with determining if the findings of fact by the Board of Review are supported by evidence which can be found to constitute legal, competent and sufficient proof. This is to say that the courts may not invalidate the findings of fact by the Board of Review where supported by evidence entitled to judicial acceptance. It is equally clear, however, that where a court must ascertain the effect of the act, judicial responsibility embraces the question of whether such findings are indicative of a disqualification under the statute. The Louisiana Employment Security Act falls within a class of social and economic legislation which is remedial in its nature, and as such should be so interpreted by the courts as to extend its benefits as far as possible within the bounds imposed by expressed legislative restrictions." [ 99 So.2d 387, 388 ]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In Burge v. Administrator, Etc., 1955, La.App., 83 So.2d 532, 535 , after observing that Webster defines misconduct as wrong or improper conduct; bad behavior, unlawful behavior or conduct or malfeasance, this court stated: "`We are mindful that Section 1601 does not qualify the word `misconduct' with `willful' or other adjectives denoting relative degrees of culpability, but where used in similar unemployment compensation acts and judicially interpreted `misconduct' has been distinguished from mere heedlessness or carelessness.'"”
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.