Bernard v. Unemployment Comp. Review Comm'n, 2013-Ohio-3121, 994 N.E.2d 437. · cites it 16ד” She claimed that R.C. 4141.46 entitles her to the benefit of the doubt on which benefits are included as wages because the statutes defining “wages” are ambiguous.”
Shephard v. Ohio Dep't of Job & Fam. Servs., 853 N.E.2d 335 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2006). · cites it 3ד{¶ 21} We also reject Shephard’s argument that the hearing officer was required to give more weight to her testimony than Trombley’s because R.C. 4141.46 provides that the provisions of the Unemployment Compensation Act are to be liberally construed.”
Williams v. Ohio Dep't of Job & Fam. Servs., 2011-Ohio-2897, 129 Ohio St. 3d 332. “yment benefits: {¶ 15} “(D) * * * [N]o individual may serve a waiting period or be paid benefits under the following conditions: {¶ 16} “ * * * {¶ 17} “(2) For the duration of the individual’s unemployment if the director finds that: {¶ 18} “(a) The individual quit work without…”
Adams v. Harding Mach. Co., 565 N.E.2d 858 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1989). · cites it 3ד” R.C. 4141.46 states that “[s]ections 4141.”
Sharp v. Union Carbide Corp., 525 N.E.2d 1386 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 2דHowever, R.C. 4141.46 mandates that “[s]ections 4141.”
Abate v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 711 N.E.2d 299 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 1998). · cites it 3ד” Additionally, R.C. 4141.46 mandates that the Act be liberally construed to favor the persons benefited.”
Adamski v. B.U.C., 161 N.E.2d 907 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1959). · cites it 4דSection 4141.46, Revised Code, provides for a liberal construction of the statute.”
Van Meter v. Segal-Schadel Co., 214 N.E.2d 664 (Ohio 1966). · cites it 2דSee also Section 4141.46, Revised Code, requiring a liberal construction of Section 4141.”
Radcliffe v. Artromick Int'l, Inc., 508 N.E.2d 953 (Ohio 1987). “Nor is it disputed that she earned the requisite wages. The dispute centers *42 on the proper construction of the phrase, “* * * and in such employment works three weeks * * We begin by noting that R.”
Puterbaugh v. Goodwill Indus. of the Miami Valley, Inc., 2014-Ohio-2208. “2006-CA-32, 2007-Ohio-1674, ¶ 10 ; R.C. 4141.46. {¶ 16} “Each unemployment compensation case must be considered upon its particular merits in determining whether there was just cause for discharge.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.