Legal Opinion · Dissent

Tuma v. Omaha Public Power District

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided July 17, 1987No. 86-102Published

1DissentKrivosha, C. J.

I must vigorously dissent from the majority in this case. I do so because the majority opinion is wrong both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law. The majority has now concluded that an employee who refuses to let his or her employer experiment with the employee’s health on a trial and error basis, albeit in good faith, is guilty of willful misconduct so as to deny the employee unemployment compensation benefits. It is, to me, significant that the majority is unable to cite any authority in support of that rule of law. I suspect that the majority’s inability to do so is due to the fact…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Sorensen v. MeyerNebraska Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Stuart v. Omaha Porkers, Inc.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Smith v. SorensenNebraska Supreme Court · 1986
  4. McCorison v. City of LincolnNebraska Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978

1 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