Legal Opinion

Leonard v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 5, 1947No. 30956PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

The Court of Appeals held that it was the duty of the board of review to consider the claimant’s statement of October 10, 1945, as well as the record before it on review. This court concurs in that view.

The principal question here is whether the claimant was “available for work” within the meaning of Section 1345-6, General Code. The appellant contends that, since the claimant did not have adequate transportation facilities and was available only for daytime work, she was not “available for work,” and that to be entitled to compensation she must be available for any shift “around the clock.”

It…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Jacobs v. Office of Unemployment Compensation & PlacementWashington Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Copeland v. Oklahoma Employment SEC. Com.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1946
  3. Hunter v. MillerNebraska Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Farloo v. Champion Spark Plug Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1945

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Producers Produce Co. v. Industrial Commission of Missouri Division of Employment SecuritySupreme Court of Missouri · 1956
  2. Mohler v. Department of LaborIllinois Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Swanson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
  4. Schettino v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation ActSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
  5. Claim of SappIdaho Supreme Court · 1954

12 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