Fountain v. Hanlon

335 N.W.2d 319, 214 Neb. 700, 1983 Neb. LEXIS 1166
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedJune 17, 1983
DocketNo. 82-856
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 335 N.W.2d 319 (Fountain v. Hanlon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fountain v. Hanlon, 335 N.W.2d 319, 214 Neb. 700, 1983 Neb. LEXIS 1166 (Neb. 1983).

Opinion

Krivosha, C.J.

The decision in this appeal is controlled by our decision released today in the case of Gilbert v. Hanlon, ante p. 676, 335 N.W.2d 548 (1983), and presents to the court the identical legal question presented in Gilbert. The appellee, Paula S. Fountain, was employed by Square D Company in Lincoln, Nebraska, on a full-time basis from July of 1979 to January 8, 1982. Additionally, Fountain worked on a part-time basis at Dagwood’s Deli in Lincoln, Nebraska, from October of 1981 to April 9, 1982. In January of 1982, at the time that Fountain’s full-time employment with Square D terminated, her working hours at Dagwood’s Deli were reduced to 6y2 hours per week. On April 9, 1982, she left Dagwood’s Deli to accept part-time employment of approximately 10 hours per week at Dutton’s Den, a restaurant located in Lincoln, Nebraska.

[701]*701In January of 1982, when Fountain was laid off from her full-time job, she began collecting unemployment compensation benefits even though she was still working part-time at Dagwood’s Deli. This was because her wages from her part-time employment were not sufficient to disqualify her from receiving full unemployment compensation benefits.

After she left her part-time employment at Dagwood’s Deli, a determination was made regarding her right to continue receiving unemployment compensation. On May 14, 1982, a claims deputy from the Department of Labor determined that Ms. Fountain was now disqualified from receiving benefits for the period from April 10, 1982, through June 5, 1982, for the reason that she had left Dagwood’s Deli voluntarily and without good cause and therefore was disqualified from receiving benefits pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(a) (Cum. Supp. 1980). In addition, the deputy found that the amount of $424 in unemployment compensation which Ms. Fountain had received for the weeks ending April 10, 1982, through May 1, 1982, constituted an overpayment during the period of disqualification. Ms. Fountain was determined to be liable to repay the $424.

She thereafter appealed the disqualification determination to the Nebraska Appeal Tribunal, and on June 3, 1982, the tribunal affirmed the department’s determination. Fountain then perfected an appeal to the District Court for Lancaster County, Nebraska, which, on November 24, 1982, reversed the decision of the Nebraska Appeal Tribunal and found that Fountain had been erroneously disqualified from receiving all the benefits to which she was entitled during her unemployment.

For all the reasons more particularly set out in our opinion in Gilbert v. Hanlon, supra, we believe that the decision of the trial court was correct, and the judgment and order of the trial court are affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Sticka v. Holiday Village South
348 N.W.2d 761 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
335 N.W.2d 319, 214 Neb. 700, 1983 Neb. LEXIS 1166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fountain-v-hanlon-neb-1983.