Legal Opinion

Holloman v. City of Quincy

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 8, 1995No. 95-1188PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Because the findings of the appeals referee are supported by competent substantial evidence, the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) erred in reweighing the evidence and rejecting the referee’s determination that Holloman was not discharged for misconduct connected with work. Scardino v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 603 So.2d 549, 549-50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Clay County Sheriff’s Office v. Loos, 570 So.2d 394, 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Shackleton v. Florida Unemploy. Appeals Comm’n, 534 So.2d 753, 753-54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). See also Maynard v. Florida Unemploy. Appeals Comm’n, 609 So.2d…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Maynard v. FLORIDA UNEMP. APP. COM'NDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
  2. Verner v. State, Unemployment Appeals Com'nDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985
  3. Clay County Sheriff's Office v. LoosDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990
  4. Scardino v. UNEMP. APPEALS COM'NDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
  5. Shackleton v. FLA. UNEMP. APP. COM'NDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1988

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Richardson v. Healthsouth Doctor's Hospital Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996
  2. Hamm v. GMRI, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API