Legal Opinion

Kaeding v. Employment Division

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 27, 1985No. 84-AB-147; CA A31040PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.

Claimant was terminated from employment for allegedly wilfully failing to report for work as scheduled without notifying his employer. He appealed an EAB order denying him unemployment compensation, contending that his conduct was the result of the illness of alcoholism and, therefore, not misconduct. We originally affirmed without opinion. 70 Or App 356, 688 P2d 854 (1984). Thereafter, claimant filed a petition requesting reconsideration of our decision in the light of Christensen v. Employment Division, 66 Or App 309, 673 P2d 1379 (1984). In the light of Christensen, we allow the petition…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Christensen v. Employment DivivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
  2. Gething v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Steele v. Employment DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  2. City of Portland v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  3. James River Corp. v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API