JOE BLACK, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1986-09-04
No. 85-1368
ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur., UPCHURCH, C.J., dissents with opinion.
493 So. 2d 93 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1986) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.

UPCHURCH, C.J., dissents with opinion.

Dissent
UPCHURCH, Chief Judge,

UPCHURCH, Chief Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. Appellant, Joe Black, was employed as a laborer for a citrus packing company for eleven years. On a Sunday morning when Black was not scheduled to work, his employer received a call to round up crews for grading oranges damaged by a recent freeze. Black’s employer instructed the crew leader to discharge any workers who refused to work when needed in an emergency. Black’s crew leader stopped by his house to pick him up and Black told him to pick up another worker and to return for him. When the crew leader returned thirty minutes later, Black did not appear. Black’s reason for not appearing, as he recalled it, was that he had gone to mail his income tax return and his crew leader never came back for him.

Black was illiterate and a cursory review of his testimony reflects that he is almost inarticulate. He had been working 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. five days a week during the freeze emergency. The failure or refusal to respond to an employer’s demand without prior notice or arrangement that an employee immediately report for work, does not support a finding of misconduct as defined in section 443.036(24), Florida Statutes (1985). See Armstrong v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 427 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Moore v. Pearson, 789 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2001)
    …ourt lacked authority to award gain time to prisoners who testified at state’s behest); Shupe v. State, 516 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (striking portion of sentence ordering that no gain time be allowed until restitution was paid); Hall v. State, 493 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (finding that trial court could not bar gain time upon violation of probation by defendant). Contrary to DOC’s contention here, however, an otherwise lawful coterminous sentence6 does not constitute “court-ordered gain time” wher…
  • Green v. State, 539 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
    …form of gain time. The awarding of statutory gain time is solely a function of the DOC, and the trial court is without authority to prevent such award or order its waiver. See Curry v. Wainwright, 422 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Hall v. State, 493 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The forfeiture of gain time is governed by § 944.28, Florida Statutes. Subsection (1) of that statute permits the DOC to declare an automatic forfeiture of gain time if a prisoner is convicted of escape or has his parole revoked…
  • Shupe v. State, 516 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
    …thout authority to prevent gain time and that the award of gain time, pursuant to section 944.275, Florida Statutes, is solely within the province of the Department of Corrections.1 Causey v. State, 504 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Hall v. State, 493 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Valdes v. State, 469 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part. DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. . Prior to October 1,1986, section 27.3455, Florida Statutes, provided that court costs imposed wou…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw