Haupt v. Davis

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the UCBR properly denied the claimant’s request for a new hearing to present previously unavailable evidence because the request was “vague and nonspecific” as to how the evidence related to the issue before the UCBR
• observing that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying a claimant’s request to present additional evidence that was vague and nonspecific
• claimant’s request for an opportunity to present additional evidence was denied as vague and nonspecific

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).