Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Giles v. Director of Labor

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided September 16, 1981No. E 81-48Published

1ConcurrenceDonald L. Corbin, Judge

I concur with the majority’s opinion.

The Arkansas Supreme Court has held that a recipient may be required to repay unemployment benefits erroneously received even if the claimant is not at fault. Whitford v. Daniels, 263 Ark. 222, 563 S.W. 2d 469 (1978). The Whitford case indicated that one factor in determining equity and good conscience is the financial condition of the claimant. The claimant in Whitford was required to make repayment based on his testimony that he had a $4,000 savings account.

The objectives of employment security legislation were enunciated by the Supreme Court of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. California Department of Human Resources Development v. JavaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Gilles v. Department of Human Resources DevelopmentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Whitford v. DanielsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1978

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API