Ellis v. Employment Division

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Ellis v. Employment Division

570 P.2d 427, 31 Or. App. 385, 1974 Ore. App. LEXIS 685

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 24, 1974

DocketNo. 76-AB-1380, 76-AB-1380A and 77-5-876EB, CA 7963 and 8364

StatusPublished

This text of 570 P.2d 427 (Ellis v. Employment Division) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ellis v. Employment Division, 570 P.2d 427, 31 Or. App. 385, 1974 Ore. App. LEXIS 685 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Claimant appeals from two orders of the Employment Appeals Board, both of which affirmed referees’ decisions which in turn affirmed administrators’ decisions denying claimant unemployment compensation. Each order covers a different period. As to the first period, claimant was declared ineligible because there was suitable work available which without good reason he chose not to accept. As to the second period, claimant was denied benefits because he refused to accept work paying less than an hourly rate which he was not warranted in demanding and thus was not available for suitable employment. There was ample evidence to support the findings of the Employment Appeals Board in both instances.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Claimant appeals from two orders of the Employment Appeals Board, both of which affirmed referees’ decisions which in turn affirmed administrators’ decisions denying claimant unemployment compensation. Each order covers a different period. As to the first period, claimant was declared ineligible because there was suitable work available which without good reason he chose not to accept. As to the second period, claimant was denied benefits because he refused to accept work paying less than an hourly rate which he was not warranted in demanding and thus was not available for suitable employment. There was ample evidence to support the findings of the Employment Appeals Board in both instances.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

570 P.2d 427, 31 Or. App. 385, 1974 Ore. App. LEXIS 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellis-v-employment-division-orctapp-1974.