Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Middletown Township v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 21, 2012Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge McCULLOUGH.

While I concur in the result reached by the Majority that Raymond A. Stepnoski (Claimant) should be granted unemployment compensation benefits, I strongly disagree with the Majority’s analysis. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) correctly determined that Claimant is not ineligible under section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)1 because he was terminated by Middletown Township (Employer). However, I respectfully must reject the Majority’s analysis in granting benefits which is based upon dicta in the…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Ingrassia Const. Co., Inc. v. WalshSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Brunswick Hotel & Conference Center, LLC v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. Lussier v. Maryland Racing CommissionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1996
  4. First Home Savings Bank, FSB v. NernbergSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. STEINBERG VISION ASSOCIATES v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993

11 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