5 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Hampshire courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Appeal of New Hampshire Sweepstakes Commissiongreen2 sentences2009It did,'however, conclude that the improper refund alone constituted the type of misconduct warranting denial of benefits under Appeal of New Hampshire Sweepstakes Commission, 130 N.H. 659, 664 (1988) (holding that single instance of misconduct is sufficient to deny benefits if it is “a deliberate violation of a company rule reasonably designed to protect the legitimate interests of the employer”). 2003Under the second prong, if there are no recurring acts of carelessness or negligence, “a single instance of misconduct may be sufficient for a finding of misconduct if it is a deliberate violation of a company rule reasonably designed to protect the legitimate business interests of the employer.” Id. (quotation, emphasis and brackets omitted); see Appeal of Beebe Rubber Co., 124 N.H. 533, 536 (1984). | 1 | 3 |
In re Lakeview Neurorehabilitation Center, Inc.green1 sentence2011Id. at 208-09 (quotations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Appeal of Beebe Rubber Co.green2 sentences2003Under the second prong, if there are no recurring acts of carelessness or negligence, “a single instance of misconduct may be sufficient for a finding of misconduct if it is a deliberate violation of a company rule reasonably designed to protect the legitimate business interests of the employer.” Id. (quotation, emphasis and brackets omitted); see Appeal of Beebe Rubber Co., 124 N.H. 533, 536 (1984). 2003We need not decide whether the claimant’s conduct as characterized by Lakeview would, as a matter of law, satisfy the deliberate violation prong of employee misconduct under RSA 282-A:32,1(b), see Appeal of Beebe Rubber Co., 124 N.H. at 536 ; Appeal of United Parcel Service, 125 N.H. 753, 756-57 (1984), because, as a matter of fact, the tribunal found that the claimant could not be faulted for his inability to perform his job functions. | 1 | 1 |
Appeal of United Parcel Service, Inc.green1 sentence2003We need not decide whether the claimant’s conduct as characterized by Lakeview would, as a matter of law, satisfy the deliberate violation prong of employee misconduct under RSA 282-A:32,1(b), see Appeal of Beebe Rubber Co., 124 N.H. at 536 ; Appeal of United Parcel Service, 125 N.H. 753, 756-57 (1984), because, as a matter of fact, the tribunal found that the claimant could not be faulted for his inability to perform his job functions. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Hampshire. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Appeal of Riendeau
green
1 sentence2011Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.