Legal Opinion · Dissent

Freeman v. Employment Department

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 9, 1998No. 97-AB-1955; CA A99749Published

1DissentWollheim, J.

“We doubt that the legislature intended this triumph of form over substance, which is antithetical to the purpose of the unemployment compensation system.”

*535Miller v. Employment Division, 45 Or App 1117, 1122, 610 P2d 293 (1980).

I believe the majority’s opinion oversimplifies claimant’s position. From my vantage point, claimant’s assertion of substantial compliance asks only for that which we have gladly granted state agencies for some time. I therefore respectfully dissent.

Claimant relies on McComas v. Employment Dept., 133 Or App 577, 891 P2d 1351, rev den 321 Or 246 (1995). There, we…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Brown v. Portland School District No. 1Oregon Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Stroh v. State Accident Insurance FundOregon Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Bronson v. MoonenOregon Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Dennis v. Employment DivisionOregon Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Berwick v. Adult & Family Services DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API