{
  "id": 1715345,
  "name": "Nancy BUCKLEY v. Charles L. DANIELS, Director of Labor and U. A. CINEMA",
  "name_abbreviation": "Buckley v. Daniels",
  "decision_date": "1980-03-05",
  "docket_number": "CA 79-280",
  "first_page": "763",
  "last_page": "765",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "268 Ark. 763"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "597 S.W.2d 98"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "224 Ark. 576",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1646550
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/224/0576-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 260,
    "char_count": 3317,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.912,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06465068040646385
    },
    "sha256": "6a4c20240b0f9f5b5774d1d4ef988a8699123690c8aa057c3b5edf4da042b22c",
    "simhash": "1:0b97808e410676eb",
    "word_count": 560
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:03:10.426772+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Newbern, J., dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Nancy BUCKLEY v. Charles L. DANIELS, Director of Labor and U. A. CINEMA"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Howard, Jr., Judge.\nClaimant was denied benefits under Section 5(a) of the Employment Security Law on the grounds that she left her last employment voluntarily and without good cause connected with her work.\nClaimant, who was employed as a janitor, testified that the manager of the U.A. Cinema called her one evening at her home and advised her to turn in the keys and that she was \u201claid off.\u201d On the other hand, the manager testified that the claimant voluntarily quit. The claimant denies this. The testimony of the parties alone is evenly balanced. The claimant has the burden of proof to establish her case by a preponderance of the evidence. If we were limited to just the testimony of the parties, we would be required to affirm the action of the Board of Review, but we are persuaded that there is other relevant evidence in the record which tips the scales in claimant\u2019s favor.\nThe record reflects that almost immediately after claimant was employed as a janitor, problems developed with reference to the number of hours claimant was required to work each day and the hourly wage rate she was to receive.\nClaimant filed a complaint with the United States Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, and requested an investigation of the working conditions and the wages paid. As a consequence of an investigation, the United States Labor Department found that claimant was \u201cimproperly paid due to the fact you were not paid at least the federal minimum wage required by the Act ($2.90 per hour) for all the hours you worked.\u201d The respondent advised the Labor Department that it would reimburse the claimant . $284.20 which represented the unpaid wages.\nUnder these circumstances, we are not persuaded that there is substantial evidence to support the holding of the Board of Review and, accordingly, we reverse and remand for proceedings not inconsistent with this holding.\nReversed and remanded.\nNewbern, J., dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Howard, Jr., Judge."
      },
      {
        "text": "David Newbern, Judge,\ndissenting. We have often held that the board of review decision in an employment security benefits case will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence to support it. For this proposition we cite, equally often, Terry Dairy Products Company v. Cash, Comm\u2019r of Labor, 224 Ark. 576, 275 S.W. 2d 12 (1955).\nIn this case the majority says if we relied on the testimony we would have to affirm. That statement says clearly that there is substantial evidence in favor of the board\u2019s conclusion. It can be construed no other way.\nWhat follows, in the majority opinion, is a consideration of other evidence and discussion of the preponderance of the evidence. If we mean it when we apply the substantial evidence test in other cases, I cannot understand this one at all. Therefore, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the board\u2019s decision even though, as the majority, I might have reached a different result had I been in the position of the board and faced with a question of where the preponderance of the evidence lay.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "David Newbern, Judge,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Appellant, pro se.",
      "Herrn Northcutt, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Nancy BUCKLEY v. Charles L. DANIELS, Director of Labor and U. A. CINEMA\nCA 79-280\n597 S.W. 2d 98\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 5, 1980\nPetition for rehearing denied March 26, 1980\nPetition for review denied April 21, 1980\nReleased for publication April 23, 1980\nAppellant, pro se.\nHerrn Northcutt, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0763-01",
  "first_page_order": 799,
  "last_page_order": 801
}