Penn Howard Adv. v. Unemp. Comp., No. Cv92 0299737 S (Mar. 29, 1993)

Connecticut Superior Court

Penn Howard Adv. v. Unemp. Comp., No. Cv92 0299737 S (Mar. 29, 1993)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 2935

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 29, 1993

DocketNo. CV92 0299737 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 2935 (Penn Howard Adv. v. Unemp. Comp., No. Cv92 0299737 S (Mar. 29, 1993)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Penn Howard Adv. v. Unemp. Comp., No. Cv92 0299737 S (Mar. 29, 1993), 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 2935 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY APPEALS DIVISION, BOARD OF REVIEW Plaintiff filed this appeal from the decision of the Board of Review reinstating benefits for plaintiff's employee, Jose Santiago. Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing before this court on the appeal.

The court has reviewed the record in this matter and finds that the Board of Review's decision is supported by the facts and that the law was correctly applied to those facts. Noyes v. Liquor Control Commission, 151 Conn. 524, states at page 527:

The determination of factual issues on CT Page 2936 conflicting testimony is within the province of the commission. [Citations omitted.]

The court finds that the law was correctly applied by the Board of Review. See Robinson v. Unemployment Security Board of Review, 181 Conn. 1, 4 (1980).

The appeal is dismissed for the foregoing reasons.

E. EUGENE SPEAR, JUDGE

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY APPEALS DIVISION, BOARD OF REVIEW Plaintiff filed this appeal from the decision of the Board of Review reinstating benefits for plaintiff's employee, Jose Santiago. Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing before this court on the appeal.

The court has reviewed the record in this matter and finds that the Board of Review's decision is supported by the facts and that the law was correctly applied to those facts. Noyes v. Liquor Control Commission, 151 Conn. 524, states at page 527:

The determination of factual issues on CT Page 2936 conflicting testimony is within the province of the commission. [Citations omitted.]

The court finds that the law was correctly applied by the Board of Review. See Robinson v. Unemployment Security Board of Review, 181 Conn. 1, 4 (1980).

The appeal is dismissed for the foregoing reasons.

E. EUGENE SPEAR, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 2935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penn-howard-adv-v-unemp-comp-no-cv92-0299737-s-mar-29-1993-connsuperct-1993.

Opinion

E. EUGENE SPEAR, JUDGE

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack