Krupa v. Murray
Decision Date | 09 May 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 88-67-M,88-67-M |
Citation | 557 A.2d 868 |
Parties | 53 Ed. Law Rep. 548 Mary Y. KRUPA et al. v. Henry F. MURRAY, Jr. et al. P. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This case comes before us on a petition for certiorari filed by employees of the Woonsocket School Department in order to review a judgment of the District Court for the Sixth Division that upheld a majority decision of the Board of Review of the Department of Employment Security denying unemployment compensation to Mary Y. Krupa, Gladys Foresti, and Jane S. Murray (employees). We affirm the judgment of the District Court. The facts of the case as found by the referee who first heard the case are as follows.
Although the member of the board of review who represented labor dissented from the denial of unemployment compensation on the ground that these employees were fifty-two-week employees as opposed to those who are employed for only a portion of the year, it is apparent from reading the statute that no exception is made based upon the number of weeks for which an employee of an educational institution...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Whitehouse v. Rumford Property and Liability Ins. Co.
...It is well settled that when a statute has a plain, clear, and unambiguous meaning, no interpretation is required. Krupa v. Murray, 557 A.2d 868, 869 (R.I.1989). It is the conclusion of this court that the language of § 27-34-8(a)(1)(iii) is plain and unambiguous. The subsection clearly sta......
-
Bassi v. Rhode Island Insurers' Insolvency Fund
...and unambiguous meaning, no interpretation is required. Vector Health Systems v. Revens, 643 A.2d 795, 797-98 (R.I.1994); Krupa v. Murray, 557 A.2d 868, 869 (R.I.1989). In the instant case the intended meaning of the act is clear from its language. Furthermore, although the Legislature has ......
-
Baker v. Department of Employment and Training Bd. of Review
...work." Id. The determination of reasonable assurance is left to the board after it examines all relevant facts. Id. See Krupa v. Murray, 557 A.2d 868, 869 (R.I.1989). The conclusion in this case, then, and in others like it, must rest on a fact-specific The District Court concluded that the......
-
Auto Body Association of Rhode Island v. State of Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation, C.A. No. PC 07-6484 (R.I. Super 8/13/2008)
...and the court is bound to construe the statute in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning set forth therein." Krupa v. Murray, 557 A.2d 868, 869 (R.I. 1989); see also Roadway Express, Inc. v. Rhode Island Comm'n for Human Rights, 416 A.2d 673, 674 (R.I. 1980) ("Words used in a statut......