Hall v. Rutledge

2 Citing cases

  1. Adkins v. Gatson

    218 W. Va. 332 (W. Va. 2005)   Cited 15 times

    See also Pearson v. Pearson, 200 W. Va. 139, 145 n. 4, 488 S.E.2d 414, 420 n. 4 (1997) ("This Court will not consider evidence which was not in the record before the circuit court."); Powderidge Unit Owners Assoc. v. Highland Props., Ltd., 196 W. Va. 692, 700, 474 S.E.2d 872, 880 (1996) ("[T]his Court for obvious reasons, will not consider evidence or arguments that were not presented to the circuit court for its consideration[.]"). But see Hall v. Rutledge, 174 W. Va. 816, 819, 329 S.E.2d 890, 892 (1985) ("The Board has the authority under its own rules and regulations to consider additional evidence not presented to the administrative law judge[.]"). Although we found the circuit court committed error in treating the City's appeal as a writ of certiorari and considering additional evidence, we do not find that these errors warrant reversal.

  2. Peery v. Rutledge

    177 W. Va. 548 (W. Va. 1987)   Cited 15 times
    Stating general rule that "the burden of persuasion is upon the former employer to demonstrate by the preponderance of the evidence that the claimant's conduct falls within a disqualifying provision of the unemployment compensation statute"

    W. Va. Code, 21A-6-5(1) [1963]. Accord, syl. pt. 2, Hall v. Rutledge, 174 W. Va. 816, 329 S.E.2d 890 (1985); syl. pt. 3, Perfin v. Cole, 174 W. Va. 417, 327 S.E.2d 396 (1985). If particular work would be unsuitable for health or safety reasons so as to justify an unemployed individual's refusal to accept such work, the same work is unsuitable for an employed individual so as to justify his or her refusal to perform such work without being guilty of "misconduct." Healthy and safe working conditions are as important, if not more so, to an employee as to a prospective employee.