Couric v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission
This text of 590 So. 2d 539 (Couric v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Edmonson S. Couric, Jr., the former employer, appeals an order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission. As the conflicts in evidence were resolved by the trier of fact, and as the findings of fact are supported by substantial competent evidence, the judgment is affirmed. See Heifetz v. Department of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277, 1281-82 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); §§ 120.57(l)(b)10, 120.68(10), Fla. Stat. (1989). We find no error in the referee’s treatment of the draft employment agreement introduced in evidence at the hearing, and agree with the Commission that the facts found by the referee do not show disqualifying misconduct on the part of the employee. See § 443.036(26), Fla. Stat. (1989); Hartenstein v. Florida Department of Labor & Employment Security, 383 So.2d 759, 761-62 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
590 So. 2d 539, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12943, 1991 WL 267990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/couric-v-florida-unemployment-appeals-commission-fladistctapp-1991.