Mercer v. Ross

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that employer is not required to prove intent with respect to misconduct arising from violation of company policy or rule
• stating that the statute lists a number of acts that can be misconduct, ―including mismanagement and placing in jeopardy the property of others‖
• stating that the statute lists a number of acts that can be misconduct, “including mismanagement and placing in jeopardy the property of others”
• requiring intent or a careless disregard for the consequences to show misconduct through mismanagement
• suit by employer to set aside award of benefits on basis employee discharged for mismanagement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).