Nisbet v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nisbet v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.

769 So. 2d 1120, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 12689, 2000 WL 1468595

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 4, 2000

DocketNo. 2D99-3351

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 769 So. 2d 1120 (Nisbet v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.) 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

Nisbet v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 769 So. 2d 1120, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 12689, 2000 WL 1468595 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

STRINGER, Judge.

John H. Nisbet appeals the denial of his claim for unemployment benefits. The appeals referee found that Nisbet is not entitled to unemployment benefits because his employer fired him for misconduct connected with work. See §§ 443.036(29), 443.101(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1999). In support, the appeals referee found that Nisbet wilfully violated the employer’s policy requiring that merchandise be paid for before it is consumed. The Unemployment Appeals Commission affirmed the appeals referee’s decision. On appeal, the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s order is entitled to a presumption of correctness. See Sekinger v. Heritage Ins., Inc., 718 So.2d 358, 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We find no legal error, and Nisbet failed to show that the finding of disqualification for unemployment benefits was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Morrow v. Alert Non-Emergency Transport, 725 So.2d 418, 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Therefore, we affirm the determination that Nisbet is not eligible for unemployment benefits.

AFFIRMED.

PATTERSON, C.J., and WHATLEY, J., Concur.

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

STRINGER, Judge.

John H. Nisbet appeals the denial of his claim for unemployment benefits. The appeals referee found that Nisbet is not entitled to unemployment benefits because his employer fired him for misconduct connected with work. See §§ 443.036(29), 443.101(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1999). In support, the appeals referee found that Nisbet wilfully violated the employer’s policy requiring that merchandise be paid for before it is consumed. The Unemployment Appeals Commission affirmed the appeals referee’s decision. On appeal, the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s order is entitled to a presumption of correctness. See Sekinger v. Heritage Ins., Inc., 718 So.2d 358, 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We find no legal error, and Nisbet failed to show that the finding of disqualification for unemployment benefits was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Morrow v. Alert Non-Emergency Transport, 725 So.2d 418, 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Therefore, we affirm the determination that Nisbet is not eligible for unemployment benefits.

AFFIRMED.

PATTERSON, C.J., and WHATLEY, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

769 So. 2d 1120, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 12689, 2000 WL 1468595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nisbet-v-publix-super-markets-inc-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack