CHARLES M. HOLLOMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE CITY OF QUINCY AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The First District Court of Appeal reversed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's decision because the Commission improperly reweighed evidence that supported the appeals referee's finding that the employee was not discharged for work-related misconduct.
When an appeals referee's findings are supported by competent substantial evidence, the Unemployment Appeals Commission errs in reweighing the evidence and substituting its own findings.
[1] When an appeals referee's findings are supported by competent substantial evidence, the Unemployment Appeals Commission lacks authority to reweigh the evidence and must a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This court cannot reweigh the evidence that the appeals referee considered in the case, and neither may the UAC; and as long as there is competent substantial evidence in the record and the referee conducted the proceedings complying with the essential requirements of the law, both should affirm the referee's decision.”
Cited from Maynard v. Florida Unemploy. Appeals Comm'n to establish the standard that the UAC cannot reweigh evidence supported by competent substantial evidence.
Holloman was discharged from employment with the City of Quincy, and the case involved whether the discharge was for misconduct connected with work.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unemployment Benefits Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Because the findings of the appeals referee are supported by competent substantial evidence, the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) erred in reweighing the evidence and rejecting the referee’s determination that Holloman was not discharged for misconduct connected with work. Scardino v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 603 So. 2d 549, 549-50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Clay County Sheriff’s Office v. Loos, 570 So. 2d 394, 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Shackleton v. Florida Unemploy. Appeals Comm’n, 534 So. 2d 753, 753-54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). See also Maynard v. Florida Unemploy. Appeals Comm’n, 609 So. 2d 143, 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (“This court cannot reweigh the evidence that the appeals referee considered in the ease, and neither may the UAC; and as long as there is competent substantial evidence in the record and the referee conducted the proceedings complying with the essential requirements of the law, both should affirm the referee’s decision.”); Verner v. State of Fla., Unemploy. Appeals Comm’n, 474 So. 2d 909, 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (Where referee’s determination is supported by competent substantial evidence, “it was improper for the UAC to reweigh the evidence and substitute its findings for those of the referee.”). Accordingly, the order on appeal is
REVERSED.
ZEHMER, C.J., and BARFIELD and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richardson v. Healthsouth Doctor's Hosp. Inc., 669 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…that the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission reweighed the evidence in denying benefits to the appellant, we reverse with directions to enter an order confirming the findings of fact and award of the appeals referee. Holloman v. City of Quincy, 664 So. 2d 310 (1995); Barreto v. Taco Bell Corp., 661 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Reversed and remanded with directions.…
-
Hamm v. Gmri, Inc., 772 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (the Appeals Referee is the fact finder in unemployment compensation proceedings, and where the Appeals Referee’s decision is supported by competent substantial evidence, it must be upheld); see also Holloman v. City of Quincy, 664 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (neither this court nor the Unemployment Appeals Commission may reweigh the evidence or substitute its findings for those of the Appeals Referee). ALLEN and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR.…
Authorities Cited
- Maynard v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Neighborhood Variety Stores, Inc., 609 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Verner v. State, 474 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Clay Cnty. Sheriff's Off. v. Loos, 570 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Scardino v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Georgia-Pacific Corp., 603 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Shackleton v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Motherhood Maternity Boutique, 534 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)