Legal Opinion

Cunningham Unemployment Compensation Case

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 16, 1960No. Appeal, No. 171PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Ervin, J.,

The only question raised-by this appeal is whether the claimant had a compelling and necessitous reason, within the meaning of §402 (b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 48 PS §802(b), to terminate his employment where he voluntarily left because he was dissatisfied with the working conditions.

A claimant who admittedly terminates his employment of his own accord has the burden of establishing that he had a compelling and necessitous reason for the separation: Seroskie Unemployment Compensation Case, 169 Pa. Superior Ct. 470, 82 A. 2d 558; Kaminski Unemployment…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kaminski Unemployment Compensation CaseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  2. Seroskie v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  3. Johnson Unemployment Compensation CaseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1956

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Citizens Bank of Shelbyville v. Industrial CommissionMissouri Court of Appeals · 1968
  2. Soyster Unemployment Compensation CaseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  3. Uhler Unemployment Compensation CaseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API