Legal Opinion
Robles v. Employment Development Department
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 22, 2012No. A132773PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
REARDON, J.
Appellant Jose Robles applied unsuccessfully for unemployment compensation benefits after his employment was terminated effective January 5, 2010. His employer did not oppose the application or appear at the administrative hearings. The trial court adopted the administrative findings and denied Robles’s petition for writ of administrative mandate. As a matter of law, the record does not demonstrate that Robles was terminated because of misconduct within the meaning of Unemployment Insurance Code section 1256 (section 1256). Additionally, Robles’s employer did not overcome…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Tripp v. SwoapCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Frink v. ProdCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Amador v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- Sanchez v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- Rowe v. HansenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- City of Pleasanton v. Board of Administration of Public Employees' Retirement SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Robles v. Employment Development DepartmentCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Brown v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Paratransit, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
- Robles v. Emp't Dev. Dep't, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.