TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Curtis v. Liberty Restaurant

Nicholas J. Curtis, Claimant-Appellant, v. Liberty Restaurant, Employer-Respondent, and Unemployment Compensation Commission of New Jersey, Respondent

Curtis v. Liberty Rest., 68 A.2d 540 (N.J. 1949)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 3, 1949
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
68 A.2d 5403 N.J. 11949 N.J. LEXIS 181

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

The question here presented is the amount of benefits to which the appellant is entitled, if any, under the Unemployment Compensation Law, R. 8.

43 :21 el seq.

He claims weekly benefits of $21, based on total earnings of $1,820, in accordance with the provisions of R. 8.

43 :21 el seq., but the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, reviewing the facts under Rule 3 :81-13, determined, as did the Board of Review of the Division of Employment Security of the State Department of Labor and Industry, that the appellant’s wages for the base year were only $815.65, with the highest quarterly earnings of $258.50, making him eligible for weekly benefits of $12, with a maximum of $272.

Although the record before us is incomplete, there are mitigating circumstances which warrant our consideration of the whole cause as though properly and completely presented. The testimony submitted below was contradictory and in sharp conflict both as to the rate of compensation and the number of days employed. The facts were resolved by the Board of Review and its findings were sustained by the Appellate Division.

The appellant now contends there was no competent testimony to support the judgment of either tribunal below, but our examination of the proof leads us to a contrary conclusion. There was ample evidence to justify the judgments returned below and nothing appears in the various reasons advanced here to justify a different result.

The judgment below is therefore affirmed but without costs.

For affirmance—Chief Justice Vandeebilt, and Justices Case, Hehee, Oliphant, Wacheneeld, Buelihg and Ackeesoit—J.

For reversal—None.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1953: 11958: 119532026peak 1953 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ricciardi v. Marcalus Manufacturing Co.140 A.2d 215 (N.J. 1958)
  2. Krauss v. A. & M. KARAGHEUSIAN, INC.94 A.2d 339 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1953)

Most recent

  1. Ricciardi v. Marcalus Manufacturing Co.140 A.2d 215 (N.J. 1958)
  2. Krauss v. A. & M. KARAGHEUSIAN, INC.94 A.2d 339 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1953)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list