Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hertel v. Employment Division

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 30, 1986No. EAB 85-AB-1150; CA A37224; SC S33266PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1DissentPeterson, C. J.

I would allow review.

The Court of Appeals remanded this case to the agency because it believed that the agency had failed to address claimant’s contention that he had to leave work to care for his children. It stated:

“Claimant contends that, due to the irregularity of his work schedule, he was unable personally to provide regular and responsive care for his children commensurate with their particular needs. That contention is based on the type of compelling personal reason that may constitute good cause for leaving work. See Sothras v. Employment Division, 48 Or App 69, 76, 616 P2d 524…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. Sothras v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
  3. Cascade Forest Products, Inc. v. Accident Prevention DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982
  4. Guerra v. Real Estate DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
  5. Hertel v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Warkentin v. Employment DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  2. Glide Lumber Products Co. v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  3. Ruiz v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  4. Ruiz v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API