Quick v. Director of State of Ala. Dept. of Indus. Relations
| Decision Date | 15 April 1981 |
| Citation | 398 So.2d 312 |
| Parties | Hattie R. QUICK v. DIRECTOR OF STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and Blue Bell, Inc. Civ. 2649. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Dan J. Willingham, Cullman, for appellant.
George Cocoris, Gen. Counsel, and Harry A. Lyles, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Montgomery, for appellees.
This is an unemployment compensation case. Mrs. Quick, the claimant, appeals.
At the conclusion of the claimant's evidence, the department moved for "a directed verdict" upon the ground that the claimant had not met her burden of proof under § 25-4-77 of the Code of Alabama of 1975, which contains the following provisions:
An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if the director finds that:
....
(3) He is physically and mentally able to perform work of a character which he is qualified to perform by past experience or training, and he is available for such work ....
The trial court overruled that motion of the department; however, the final judgment determined that the claimant was disqualified, and was not eligible to receive unemployment benefits under the laws of Alabama.
In State Department of Industrial Relations v. Thomas, 55 Ala.App. 712, 715, 318 So.2d 739, 741 (1975), a judgment awarding unemployment benefits was reversed. Therein, it was stated:
The trial court's finding that the claimant was eligible to receive benefits is without support in the evidence. After a very careful review of the record in this case we are unable to find any evidence to support a finding that claimant was able and available for work which she was qualified to do. Such proof was necessary to sustain claimant's case and, in its absence, an essential element of her case fails. As a consequence, she would not be entitled to any benefits under the Alabama unemployment compensation law.
Of like tenor, see also, State Department of Industrial Relations v. Downey, Ala.Civ.App., 380 So.2d 906 (1980); Director of State Department of Industrial Relations v. Harbin, Ala.Civ.App., 365 So.2d 313 (1978).
Thus, the law is very clear and certain that the burden is upon a claimant who sues for unemployment compensation to establish by sufficient evidence, or by proper and adequate stipulation, that she was available for work during the time for which she seeks benefits. Here, the evidence did not touch upon, and the stipulation did not cover, those...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McClure v. Moore
...a non-jury case the proper term would be a motion for dismissal. See A.R.Civ.P. 41(b); see also Quick v. Director of State of Alabama Dep't of Ind. Rel., 398 So.2d 312, 314 (Ala.Civ.App.1981).3 The defendants did not file a brief on this appeal. While the plaintiffs structured the issues so......
-
Polk v. State, Dept. of Indus. Relations
...of proving that he is available for work during the time for which he seeks benefits. Quick v. Director of State of Alabama Department of Industrial Relations, 398 So.2d 312 (Ala.Civ.App.1981). The unemployment compensation statute, however, should be liberally construed in claimant's favor......
-
Cluxton v. Cluxton
...for the court in such a situation to direct a verdict. See Greene v. Jones, 377 So.2d 947 (Ala.1979); Quick v. State Department of Industrial Relations, 398 So.2d 312 (Ala.Civ.App.1981); Chaney v. General Motors Corp., 348 So.2d 799 (Ala.Civ.App.1977). When the evidence is presented to the ......
-
Vinson v. AGAPE of Central Alabama, Inc.
...evidence is a motion for dismissal or for judgment, not a motion for directed verdict. See Quick v. Director of State of Alabama Department of Industrial Relations, 398 So.2d 312 (Ala.Civ.App.1981). A natural parent has a prima facie right to custody of his or her child. In re Palmer, 387 S......