JOSEPH W. SPIEGEL, APPELLANT,
v.
LAVIS PLUMBING SERVICES ET AL., 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 court held that the Appeals Referee improperly conditioned the appellant's due process right to subpoena witnesses by requiring a showing of good cause.
[1] A claimant has a due process right to subpoena witnesses to testify on their behalf at an unemployment compensation hearing.
[2] An unemployment appeals referee cannot condition a claimant's right to subpoena witnesses on a showing of "good cause" for the request.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, seeking unemployment compensation, requested witnesses at his hearing before the Appeals Referee. The Referee stated he would only cons…
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 Right To Subpoena Witnesses cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellant, claimant below, brings this appeal from an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming the Appeals Referee’s decision affirming the Claims Examiner’s determination disqualifying appellant from receiving unemployment compensation benefits because of misconduct connected with his employment leading to his dismissal. We reverse.
The point urged by appellant on appeal which requires reversal is shown by the record made before the Appeals Referee. At the beginning of his hearing, appellant expressed his desire to the Appeals Referee to have certain witnesses subpoenaed to appear on his behalf. The Appeals Referee replied, in pertinent part, as follows:
“If you feel, by the time the — I am to close the hearing that you still want witnesses, and if you shall show cause — good cause to me for your request for witnesses, then I will take it under consideration, and if you find that you have good cause, I will then postpone the hearing and issue subpoenas for those witnesses to appear.”
It is so elementary that it requires neither citation nor elaboration that appellant, at his hearing before the Appeals Referee, as one of his minimal due process rights, had the right to subpoena witnesses to testify on his behalf. The Appeals Referee could not properly condition appellant’s exercise of this right by requiring him to show “good cause” for the issuance of any requested subpoenas. Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for the purpose of allowing, appellant to subpoena any witnesses he desires and for the purpose of allowing him to present the testimony of such witnesses before the Appeals Referee for his consideration in regard to appellant’s appeal of his denial of unemployment compensation benefits. Naturally, this right is subject to the appropriate rules of procedure in regard to subpoenas, witnesses, etc.
We have carefully reviewed the other points raised on appeal and find them to be without merit.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Veola B. Williams v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 374 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…record reveals that the referee denied the employee her basic right to the compulsory attendance of witnesses by declining to issue subpoenas for the persons she wished to call at the hearing. On the authority of Spiegel v. Lavis Plumbing Services, 373 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) and Drogaris v. Martine’s Inc., 118 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960), we reverse the order below and remand for a new hearing before which, as in Spiegel, the appellant may “subpoena any witness [she] desires.” Reversed and remanded…
-
Guerra v. State, 427 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…e nature and significance of the error and its relationship to the rights of the affected party. See Williams v. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, 374 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Spiegel v. Lavis Plumbing Services, 373 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (referee’s denial of claimant’s unconditional constitutional right to compulsory process requires reversal without consideration of harmlessness even absent showing of relevance of unsubpoenaed witness). See generally, Peri v. Sta…
-
Ivone S. O'Blenis v. Fla. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 388 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…sion that the Referee denied the employee her basic right to compulsory attendance of witnesses by denying her request to issue subpoenas for persons she wished to call at the hearing to testify in her behalf. See Spiegel v. Lavis Plumbing Services, 373 So. 2d 72 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), and Williams v. Florida Department of Commerce, 374 So. 2d 1158 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). The employee was dismissed from her job as a cafeteria attendant. The claims examiner found her eligible for unemployment compensation and conclud…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence