Dentici v. Industrial Commission
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
The planned and hoped-for result outlined in sec. 108.04 (4) (b), Stats. 1943, and appearing in later statutes as sec. 108.04 (7) (a) and (b) is that an employee shall be eligible for the benefits arising from unemployment compensation under certain circumstances favorable to the employee, but that an employee is barred from eligibility for benefits if “he has left his employment voluntarily without good cause attributable to the employer.” From the facts disclosed by the record, the question for our determination is whether or not there is evidence to sustain the commission’s finding that…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Nottelson v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
- California Portland Cement Co. v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Kessler v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- Armco Steel Corp. v. Labor & Industrial Relations Commission, Division of Employment SecurityMissouri Court of Appeals · 1977
- Fish v. White Equipment Sales & Service, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.