Legal Opinion

Trebesch v. Employment Division

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 26, 1985No. EAB 83-AB-586A; CA A28498; SC S30900PublishedCited by 67 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRoberts, J.

The issue is whether the Assistant Director of the Employment Division was required to promulgate a rule defining the statutory phrase “systematic and sustained effort to obtain work” before it could deny claimant extended unemployment benefits for failing to fulfill the statutory requirement.

An individual is, by statute, ineligible for extended unemployment benefits if the individual failed “actively [to] engage in seeking work.” ORS 657.325(6)(b). An individual, by statute, will be treated as “actively engaged in seeking work” if “[t]he individual has engaged in a systematic and sustained…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Springfield Education Ass'n v. Springfield School District No. 19Oregon Supreme Court · 1980
  2. State v. ClarkOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  3. McPherson v. Employment DivisionOregon Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Megdal v. Oregon State Board of Dental ExaminersOregon Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Application of Portland General Elec. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1977

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by67 opinions

  1. Blanchana, LLC v. Bureau of Labor and IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Karjalainen v. Curtis Johnston & Pennywise, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
  3. Veneer v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  4. Homestyle Direct, LLC v. Department of Human ServicesOregon Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Harsh Investment Corp. v. State Ex Rel. State Housing DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987

62 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