Court Opinion

ID: 9684854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:16:44.7972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:00.621976
License: Public Domain

Wilkie, J.
(concurring). I agree with the result reached by the majority and with their construction of the term “teacher” under the Unemployment Act as pertinent to the facts of this case. I would reverse for the additional reason that the Industrial Commission’s determination that Gelencser was a “teacher” within the terms of the Unemployment Act in part involves a conclusion of law and that since that determination represents a reasonable formulation and application of the commission’s interpretation of the statute' this court should accept the agency’s formulation and application irrespective of whether there may have been some other interpretation or application that would be reasonable.1

 Milwaukee Transformer Co. v. Industrial Comm. (1964), 22 Wis. (2d) 502, 510, 511, 126 N. W. (2d) 6; Tecumseh Products Co. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board (1964), 23 Wis. (2d) 118, 129, 126 N. W. (2d) 520.