Legal Opinion · Dissent
Reetz v. Lutheran Health Systems
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided June 7, 2000No. NonePublished
1DissentSabers, Justice
[¶ 28.] I dissent to the majority opinion’s conclusion that Reetz should be denied unemployment benefits because she “failed to establish good cause for refusing continued employment with Colonial Manor.” The • Department of Labor (DOL) found that Reetz was not discharged for misconduct and that she had good cause to quit her job. The circuit court affirmed. We should also affirm.
[¶24.] When reviewing administrative appeals, the standard of review is governed by SDCL 1-26-37, which provides that we “shall give the same deference to the findings of fact, conclusions of law and final judgment…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Johnson v. Virginia Employment Com'nCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1989
- Anderson v. Western Dakota InsurorsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1986
- In Re the Appeal From the Final Decision of the South Dakota Department of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Division, for FickbohmSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1982
- Murphy v. Department of Employment SecurityCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1987
- Randolph v. New Mexico Employment Security DepartmentNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1989
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.