Murphy & Landon, P.A. v. Pernic

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a warning is sufficient if it provides notice that a “general category of misconduct [is] unacceptable”
• finding legal error by the Board when it failed to redress an appeals referee’s decision to inappropriately restrict the issues before her
• “It cannot be said that the Board’s decision was unreasonable merely because this Court would have reached a different conclusion.”
• “An employer need not specify the types of conduct that could lead to termination so long as the employee is aware that certain types of conduct are improper and prohibited.”
• “This Court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions [of] credibility, or make its own factual findings.” (citing Thompson v. Christiana Care Health Sys., 25 A.3d 778, 782 (Del. 2011))
• “Even though our standard of review of [administrative board] decisions is deferential, it is not meaningless, and we need not defer to findings that are not rationally supported by substantial evidence in the record.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Murphy & Landon, P.A. v. Pernic

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Murphy & Landon, P.A. v. Pernic.
  Superior Court of Delaware· 2014-07-11