Lawrence v. Everett

9 Citing cases

  1. Pillow v. Dir., Div. of Workforce Servs.

    2022 Ark. App. 341 (Ark. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 24 times
    In Pillow v. Director, 2022 Ark.App. 341, we addressed similar findings by the Board and held that such findings did not explain why the claimant was found eligible for benefits and was only later determined to be ineligible or disqualified.

    In the event the Board finds on remand that DWS made an error that directly resulted in the overpayment to Pillow, the Board should make detailed factual findings from the record with respect to whether recovery would be against equity and good conscience. Lawrence v. Everett, 9 Ark.App. 138, 653 S.W.2d 140 (1983).

  2. Saldana v. Director

    2015 Ark. App. 129 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 1 times
    Remanding for findings because the Board did not rule on the claimant's constitutional arguments

    When an administrative agency fails to make a finding on a pertinent issue, we do not decide the question in the first instance, but instead remand for a ruling. Bergman v. Director, 2009 Ark. App. 724; Lawrence v. Everett, 9 Ark. App. 138, 653 S.W.2d 140 (1983). Remanded for additional findings.

  3. Gore Eng'g Assocs. Inc. v. Arkansas Contractors Licensing Bd.

    2011 Ark. App. 640 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 3 times

    The long-standing rule is that, when an administrative agency fails to make a finding upon a pertinent issue of fact, the courts do not decide the question in the first instance. The cause is remanded to the agency so that a finding can be made on that issue. Hays v. Batesville Mfg. Co., 251 Ark. 659, 473 S.W.2d 926 (1971); Reddick v. Scott, 217 Ark. 38, 228 S.W.2d 1008 (1950); Chandler v. Ark. Appraisers Licensing & Certification Bd., 92 Ark. App. 423, 214 S.W.3d 86 (2005); Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd. v. Hicks, 19 Ark. App. 212, 718 S.W.2d 488 (1986); Lawrence v. Everett, 9 Ark. App. 138, 653 S.W.2d 140 (1983). Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause to the circuit court, with directions to remand it to the Contractors Licensing Board to make appropriate findings of fact.

  4. Bergman v. Director, Department of Workforce Services

    2009 Ark. App. 724 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 4 times

    When an administrative agency fails to make a finding on a pertinent issue, we do not decide the question in the first instance, but instead remand for a ruling. Lawrence v. Everett, 9 Ark. App. 138, 653 S.W.2d 140 (1983). Remanded.

  5. Chandler v. Arkansas Appraisers Licensing & Certification Board

    214 S.W.3d 861 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 4 times

    [1] The long-standing rule is that, when an administrative agency fails to make a finding upon a pertinent issue of fact, the courts do not decide the question in the first instance. The cause is remanded to the agency so that a finding can be made on that issue. Hays v. Batesville Mfg. Co., 251 Ark. 659, 473 S.W.2d 926 (1971); Reddick v. Scott, 217 Ark. 38, 228 S.W.2d 1008 (1950); Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd. v. Hicks, 19 Ark. App. 212, 718 S.W.2d 488 (1986); Lawrence v. Everett, 9 Ark. App. 138, 653 S.W.2d 140 (1983). Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause to the circuit court, with directions to remand it to the Board to make findings of fact supporting its decision.

  6. Ferren v. Director

    59 Ark. App. 213 (Ark. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 9 times

    [1] Did the Board make sufficient findings of fact to permit meaningful appellate review of its decision? It is instructive to review comparable workers' compensation law on this question. In both areas of the law it is the responsibility of the respective agencies to make findings of fact. Compare Lawrence v. Everett, 9 Ark. App. 138, 653 S.W.2d 140 (1983) (matter remanded to Board of Review in light of its failure to make a finding on an issue), with Wright v. American Transportation, 18 Ark. App. 18, 709 S.W.2d 107 (1986) (case reversed and remanded upon Workers' Compensation Commission's failure to make findings of fact). Our supreme court drew upon workers' compensation law to establish the scope of judicial review in employment security cases.

  7. Khan v. Director, Employment Security Department

    48 Ark. App. 64 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994)

    217 Ark. at 41, 228 S.W.2d at 1010. The Arkansas Court of Appeals followed this decision in Lawrence v. Everett, Director, 9 Ark.App. 138, 653 S.W.2d 140 (1983), where we said the Board of Review had failed to make a finding on an issue essential to our decision of the case. In Helena-West Helena SchoolDistrict v. Stiles, 15 Ark.App. 30, 688 S.W.2d 326 (1985), we remanded the case to the Board of Review for it to determine whether the appellant had notice of a hearing held by an appeals referee.

  8. Holsum Shipley Baking Co. v. Terwilliger

    819 S.W.2d 303 (Ark. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 1 times

    Since the Board has not discussed the appellant's contention in regard to section 11-10-513 (b) but has only adopted the findings of the Appeal Tribunal, this matter should be remanded to the Board and the Board directed to make a finding upon the issue the appellant has raised each step of the proceedings. In Lawrence v. Everett, 9 Ark. App. 138, 653 S.W.2d 140 (1983), this court remanded an unemployment case to the Board of Review for it to make a finding upon an issue it had failed to decide. The Board had affirmed an Appeal Tribunal decision holding that the appellant was liable to repay unemployment benefits which the appellant had received but to which he was not entitled. The appellant had raised the issue that it would be against equity and good conscience for him to be required to make the repayment.

  9. Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd. v. Hicks

    19 Ark. App. 212 (Ark. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 4 times
    In Alcoholic Beverage Control Board v. Hicks, 19 Ark.App. 212, 217, 718 S.W.2d 488, 491 (1986), we said the "long-standing rule is that when an administrative agency fails to make a finding upon a pertinent issue of fact.... [t]he cause is remanded to the agency so that a finding can be made on that issue.

    The long-standing rule is that when an administrative agency fails to make a finding upon a pertinent issue of fact, the courts do not decide the question in the first instance. The cause is remanded to the agency so that a finding can be made on that issue. Hays v. Batesville Manufacturing Co., 251 Ark. 659, 473 S.W.2d 926 (1971); Reddick v. Scott, 217 Ark. 38, 229 S.W.2d 1008 (1950); Lawrence v. Everett, 9 Ark. App. 138, 653 S.W.2d 140 (1983). Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause to the circuit court, with directions to remand it to the ABC Board with directions that the Board make findings of fact and enter a decision on the application, taking the additional evidence into consideration.