Harlow v. Unemployment Appeals Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harlow v. Unemployment Appeals Commission

446 So. 2d 1115, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11841

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 16, 1984

DocketNo. 83-806

StatusPublished

This text of 446 So. 2d 1115 (Harlow v. Unemployment Appeals Commission) 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

Harlow v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 446 So. 2d 1115, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11841 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

ORFINGER, Chief Judge.

With respect to appellant’s claim for unemployment compensation benefits based on the termination of his employment with Russell & Axon, there is competent substantial evidence to support the appeals referee’s determination that the termination of appellant’s employment was voluntary and without good cause attributable to his employer. See section 443.101(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1981).

Appellant’s reliance now on Herman v. Florida Department of Commerce, Industrial Relations Commission, 323 So.2d 608 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), is misplaced, because except for a brief reference in closing argument to appellant’s former employer, Martin-Marietta Company, the entire case was processed under a single claim against Russell & Axon, the last employer.

The order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission denying such benefits is therefore

AFFIRMED.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and SHARP, JJ., concur.

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