Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Ctr.,Inc., 555 P.2d 969 (1976) Facts: On June 4, 1974 Zelma Mitchell the petitioner-appellee was fired from Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. the reason being alleged misconduct. Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation benefits on the 12th of June 1974, Ms. Mitchell's actions were considered to be misconduct by a deputy of the unemployment security commission. This then disqualified Ms. Mitchell from seven weeks of benefits pursuant to 59-9-6(E)
Words: 2680 - Pages: 11
Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Ctr., Inc. 555 P.2d 696 (N.M. 1976) Issue: What constitutes misconduct under New Mexico Statutes Annotated; whether Mitchell committed actions which constituted misconduct under N.M. Stat. Ann.§ 59-9-5(b) (West 1953). Holding: Misconduct is not defined by the Unemployment Compensation Law within the New Mexico Statutes Annotated; however, the Wisconsin Supreme Court case Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (Wis.1941)
Words: 1748 - Pages: 7
Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696 (1976) Facts: The Appelle was terminated from the Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. On June 4, 1974. On June 12, 1974 Mrs. Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation benefits. She was initially disqualified from seven weeks of benefits by a deputy of the Unemployment Security Commission. Mrs. Mitchell then fill an appeal, the Appeal Tribunal reversed the deputy’s decision. Mrs. Mitchell’s benefits were reinstated on August 28
Words: 1199 - Pages: 5
Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing June 26, 2012 Citation- Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. 555 P.2d 696 (N.M. 1976) Facts- 1. Plaintiff (Mrs. Mitchell) was terminated from her job at Lovington good Samaritan Center, Inc., due to alleged misconduct. Plaintiff then filed for unemployment compensation benefits. Due to the finding from the deputy of the Unemployment Security Commission Mrs. Mitchell was denied benefits for seven weeks. Plaintiff appealed the decision
Words: 1976 - Pages: 8
FACTS: Ms. Natalie Attired filed and was denied unemployment compensation benefits on the grounds of “misconduct” in July of 2010. She began working as a waitress at Biddy’s Tea House in May of 2009 and she received work performance evaluations every three months during her time of employment. Ms. Attired received a total of four evaluations, which showed constant improvements. In June of 2010, Natalie purchased a full-sleeve tattoo that covered her entire upper right arm, from shoulder to elbow
Words: 1173 - Pages: 5
University Professor Hermes September 14, 2012 Case Brief #1: Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696 (N.M. 1976). Facts: The plaintiff was terminated from the Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. on June 4, 1974. On June 12, 1974 Mrs. Mitchell applied for unemployment benefits and was denied seven weeks of benefits by the Unemployment Security Commission deputy. Mrs. Mitchell filed an appeal which in turn the Appeal Tribunal overturned the deputy’s decision
Words: 2045 - Pages: 9
Case Brief Rodman v. New Mexico Security Department 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M. 1988). Facts: Rodman had been employed by Presbyterian Hospital as a unit secretary for nearly eight years when, on February 17, 1987, she was terminated under hospital personnel policies following a "third corrective action" notice. Prior restrictions had been placed on Rodman's conduct due to personal problems adversely impacting upon her place of work. Issue: whether the misconduct which warranted termination
Words: 562 - Pages: 3
Unit 6 Assignment Kaplan University Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing PA205 LEGAL MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Natalie Attired Unemployment Compensation Claim Facts: July 2010, Ms. Natalie Attired filed and was denied unemployment compensation benefits on the grounds of “misconduct”. May 2009, Ms. Attired began employment with Biddy’s Tea House where she received work performance evaluation every 3 months during her time of employment. Ms. Attired received a total of
Words: 413 - Pages: 2
LEGAL MEMORANDUM To: From: Nimrod Vigilance Date: 8/26/2012 Subject: Natalie Attired Unemployment Compensation Claim Facts: In May 2009, Ms. Attired began employment with Biddy’s Tea House where she received work performance evaluation every 3 months during her time of employment. Ms. Attired received a total of four evaluations, which showed constant improvement and no reprimands. In June 2010, Ms. Attired purchased a full-sleeve tattoo (photo attached) which covered the entire
Words: 410 - Pages: 2
terminated for “misconduct”. She also was proven to show actions of misconduct. Applicable Statute Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) adopted the meaning of “misconduct”. Discussion Natalie Attired actions can be considered misconduct according to the definition that was provided. The court defined “misconduct” in Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696, 698 (1976). In which they defined it as “limited to conduct
Words: 447 - Pages: 2
