{
  "id": 1709323,
  "name": "Harvey HAM v. Charles DANIELS, Director of Labor, and CAPITAL TYPEWRITER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ham v. Daniels",
  "decision_date": "1980-10-29",
  "docket_number": "E 80-48",
  "first_page": "961",
  "last_page": "962",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "270 Ark. 961"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "606 S.W.2d 604"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "267 Ark. 683",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1719902
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/267/0683-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 Ark. 576",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1646550
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1944,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/224/0576-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 189,
    "char_count": 1973,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.738,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39218715067944115
    },
    "sha256": "9f5fff7495d1e723e3def9c8437da57d832cb775681ae335c49c8d3c8543d93f",
    "simhash": "1:8d0fd16439832a14",
    "word_count": 324
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:39.197564+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Wright and Judge Hays and Howard dissent."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Harvey HAM v. Charles DANIELS, Director of Labor, and CAPITAL TYPEWRITER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "David Newbern, Judge.\nWe granted a rehearing in this case because the appellant called to our attention correspondence in the record by which persons who had been described by his employer at the hearing before the appeals tribunal as being dissatisfied with services rendered to them by the appellant had denied being dissatisfied. Of course, the letters became part of the record after the hearing and before the board of review dealt with the matter. Because of the abbreviated nature of the board of review opinion, we are unable to tell the extent to which the letters were considered by the board of review.\nA careful reexamination of the entire record, however, convinces us that even had the board of review given the letters in question the fullest consideration to which they were entitled, there was substantial evidence, consisting of the testimony of the appellant\u2019s employer to sustain the board\u2019s affirmance.\nThe employer testified the appellant had been at least indifferent to his duties and had stated it really did not matter that he mixed up typewriter deliveries. That testimony shows actions by the employee which were not in his employer\u2019s best interest. It was supportive of the finding the employee was disqualified from benefits, having been discharged for misconduct. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1106(b)(1) (Repl. 1976). Having found substantial evidence in support of the board\u2019s decision, we must affirm. Terry Dairy Products, Inc. v. Cash, 224 Ark. 576, 275 S.W. 2d 12 (1944); Deatherage v. Charles L. Daniels, et al., 267 Ark. 683 590 S.W. 2d 62 (Ark. App. 1979).\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge Wright and Judge Hays and Howard dissent.\nOriginally affirmed without opinion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 21 (2) on September 10, 1980.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "David Newbern, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Appellant, pro se.",
      "Herm Northcutt, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Harvey HAM v. Charles DANIELS, Director of Labor, and CAPITAL TYPEWRITER\nE 80-48\n606 S.W. 2d 604\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion on Rehearing delivered October 29, 1980\nAppellant, pro se.\nHerm Northcutt, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0961-01",
  "first_page_order": 989,
  "last_page_order": 990
}