Elmore v. Hammond

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Elmore v. Hammond

642 So. 2d 128, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8831, 1994 WL 497313

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 14, 1994

DocketNo. 94-499

StatusPublished

This text of 642 So. 2d 128 (Elmore v. Hammond) 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.

Bluebook

Elmore v. Hammond, 642 So. 2d 128, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8831, 1994 WL 497313 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.-

We reverse the denial to appellant of unemployment compensation benefits for the period after she quit her part-time job. An employee who quits a part-time job does not forfeit prior unemployment benefits. Stewart v. Dollar Tree, 635 So.2d 73 (Fla. 1st [129]*129DCA 1994); Wright v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 512 So.2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Neese v. Sizzler Family Steak House, 404 So.2d 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Appellant was receiving benefits based on her employment with River Region Human Services when she accepted part-time employment from Lizena’s Cleaning Service. She later had to give up the job with Lizena’s because she had no reliable transportation. The Division of Unemployment Compensation thereafter erroneously ceased appellant’s unemployment benefits which had arisen out of her full-time employment with River Region. These benefits must be reinstated retroactive to the date they were terminated.

REVERSED, with instructions.

ALLEN, KAHN and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.-

We reverse the denial to appellant of unemployment compensation benefits for the period after she quit her part-time job. An employee who quits a part-time job does not forfeit prior unemployment benefits. Stewart v. Dollar Tree, 635 So.2d 73 (Fla. 1st [129]*129DCA 1994); Wright v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 512 So.2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Neese v. Sizzler Family Steak House, 404 So.2d 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Appellant was receiving benefits based on her employment with River Region Human Services when she accepted part-time employment from Lizena’s Cleaning Service. She later had to give up the job with Lizena’s because she had no reliable transportation. The Division of Unemployment Compensation thereafter erroneously ceased appellant’s unemployment benefits which had arisen out of her full-time employment with River Region. These benefits must be reinstated retroactive to the date they were terminated.

REVERSED, with instructions.

ALLEN, KAHN and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

642 So. 2d 128, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8831, 1994 WL 497313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elmore-v-hammond-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack