Hamm v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division

Indiana Court of Appeals

Hamm v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division

177 N.E.2d 337, 132 Ind. App. 318, 1961 Ind. App. LEXIS 145

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 11, 1961

Docket19,638

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 177 N.E.2d 337 (Hamm v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hamm v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, 177 N.E.2d 337, 132 Ind. App. 318, 1961 Ind. App. LEXIS 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Cooper, J.

This is a matter of judicial review from a decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division based upon the denial of a claim brought by an employee to recover unemployment benefits by reason of termination of the appellant’s employment on or about the 4th day of August, 1960.

The Attorney General of Indiana, by one of his duly-appointed deputies, has filed a Confession of Error and admits that the judgment rendered in this cause should, in all things, be reversed. It is, nevertheless, the duty and responsibility of an ap *320 pellate court in such matters to examine the record and determine whether the law, as applied to the facts- in the cause being reviewed, requires a reversal. See Myers v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 66, 67, 116 N. E. 2d 839; Green v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 596, 115 N. E. 2d 211.

The record reveals that the appellant herein filed his “Application for Benefits” at the Bloomington, Indiana office of the Indiana Employment Security Division; said office denied his application. Thereafter, the appellant requested an appeal from the decision of the Claims Office to an appeals referee.

The record further reveals that oh November 23, 1960, the cause was held by an appeals referee, and, at the time' of said hearing, the appellant advised said referee, in substance, that he had employed an attorney, naming him, to represent him in the matter and that the appellant had attempted to reach' his attorney the day before but found out he was in court. The referee ignored the statements made by the appellant, and proceeded to interrogate him, and at thé conclusion of said interrogation,' entered a finding against the appellant herein.

We do not deem it necessary to cite authority that the due process of law provisions of both constitutions ■apply equally to administrative boards, the same as to courts of law, and that the appellant herein had the right to be represented by counsel in this matter before the appeals referee, and at every other stage of the proceedings. When the referee proceeded in the matter as revealed by the record herein, without giving the appellant the benefit of his counsel, such act was arbitrary and illegal and calls for us to reverse the judgment and remand the cause with instructions to grant the appellant herein a full and complete hearing *321 and the right to appear before the appeals referee with his counsel in the manner provided for by law.

Ax, J., Myers, J., Ryan, P. J., concur.

Note. — Reported in 177 N. E. 2d 337.

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

Cooper, J.

This is a matter of judicial review from a decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division based upon the denial of a claim brought by an employee to recover unemployment benefits by reason of termination of the appellant’s employment on or about the 4th day of August, 1960.

The Attorney General of Indiana, by one of his duly-appointed deputies, has filed a Confession of Error and admits that the judgment rendered in this cause should, in all things, be reversed. It is, nevertheless, the duty and responsibility of an ap *320 pellate court in such matters to examine the record and determine whether the law, as applied to the facts- in the cause being reviewed, requires a reversal. See Myers v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 66, 67, 116 N. E. 2d 839; Green v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 596, 115 N. E. 2d 211.

The record reveals that the appellant herein filed his “Application for Benefits” at the Bloomington, Indiana office of the Indiana Employment Security Division; said office denied his application. Thereafter, the appellant requested an appeal from the decision of the Claims Office to an appeals referee.

The record further reveals that oh November 23, 1960, the cause was held by an appeals referee, and, at the time' of said hearing, the appellant advised said referee, in substance, that he had employed an attorney, naming him, to represent him in the matter and that the appellant had attempted to reach' his attorney the day before but found out he was in court. The referee ignored the statements made by the appellant, and proceeded to interrogate him, and at thé conclusion of said interrogation,' entered a finding against the appellant herein.

We do not deem it necessary to cite authority that the due process of law provisions of both constitutions ■apply equally to administrative boards, the same as to courts of law, and that the appellant herein had the right to be represented by counsel in this matter before the appeals referee, and at every other stage of the proceedings. When the referee proceeded in the matter as revealed by the record herein, without giving the appellant the benefit of his counsel, such act was arbitrary and illegal and calls for us to reverse the judgment and remand the cause with instructions to grant the appellant herein a full and complete hearing *321 and the right to appear before the appeals referee with his counsel in the manner provided for by law.

Ax, J., Myers, J., Ryan, P. J., concur.

Note. — Reported in 177 N. E. 2d 337.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 N.E.2d 337, 132 Ind. App. 318, 1961 Ind. App. LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamm-v-review-board-of-the-indiana-employment-security-division-indctapp-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack