Davis v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Davis v. Commonwealth

392 A.2d 356, 38 Pa. Commw. 233, 1978 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1368

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 24, 1978

DocketAppeal, No. 993 C.D. 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 392 A.2d 356 (Davis v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Commonwealth, 392 A.2d 356, 38 Pa. Commw. 233, 1978 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1368 (Pa. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam

Opinion,

The only issue raised by Appellant, Carl J. Davis, is whether the finding of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review that he was discharged as a result of willful misconduct connected with his employment is supported by substantial evidence. We have reviewed, with intensity, the record made before the hearing authorities and are satisfied that the testimony of the employer’s foreman, Frank Cooney, and its assistant personnel director, Stanley Eogut, sufficiently supports the Board’s finding that Appellant yas discharged for excessive absenteeism and violation: of a .labor management agreement.

[235]*235Accordingly, we

Order

And Now, this 24th day of October, 1978, the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying unemployment compensation benefits to Carl J. Davis is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam

Opinion,

The only issue raised by Appellant, Carl J. Davis, is whether the finding of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review that he was discharged as a result of willful misconduct connected with his employment is supported by substantial evidence. We have reviewed, with intensity, the record made before the hearing authorities and are satisfied that the testimony of the employer’s foreman, Frank Cooney, and its assistant personnel director, Stanley Eogut, sufficiently supports the Board’s finding that Appellant yas discharged for excessive absenteeism and violation: of a .labor management agreement.

[235]*235Accordingly, we

Order

And Now, this 24th day of October, 1978, the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying unemployment compensation benefits to Carl J. Davis is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 A.2d 356, 38 Pa. Commw. 233, 1978 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack