As a guide to the interpretation and application of this chapter, the public policy of this state is declared to be as follows: Economic insecurity due to unemployment is a serious menace to the health, morals and welfare of the people of this state. Involuntary unemployment is therefore a subject of general interest and concern which requires appropriate action by the legislature to prevent its spread and to lighten its burden which now so often falls with crushing force upon the unemployed worker and his family. The achievement of social security requires protection against this greatest hazard of economic life. This can be provided by encouraging employers to provide more stable employment and by the systematic accumulation of funds during periods of employment to provide benefits for periods of unemployment, thus maintaining purchasing power and limiting the serious social consequences of poor relief assistance. The legislature, therefore, declares that in its considered judgment the public good and the general welfare of the citizens of this state require the enactment of this measure, under the police powers of the state, for the compulsory setting aside of unemployment reserves to be used for the benefit of persons unemployed through no fault of their own.
Notes of Decisions
Weller v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 860 P.2d 487 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 8× “" A.R.S. § 23-601. On the other hand, the benefits are limited to "persons unemployed through no fault of their own.”
At & T Info. Sys., Inc. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 741 P.2d 703 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 8× “We agree with the Appeals Board. Unemployment insurance was adopted by the legislature to provide economic assistance to individuals who are temporarily unemployed.”
John Munic Enter., Inc. v. Laos, 326 P.3d 279 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “¶ 18 Although the cases from other jurisdictions are divided, those applying the collateral source rule in contract or similar cases illustrate that in many contexts application of the rule would serve valid and valuable purposes that also are consistent with contract law…”
Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Magma Copper Co., 609 P.2d 1089 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 6× “The intent of the Act and of the aforementioned pertinent provisions can be found in the Legislature's declaration of policy articulated in A.R.S. § 23-601. This statute makes it clear that a purpose of the act is to prevent the spread, and lighten burden of, involuntary…”
Levy v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 643 P.2d 704 (Ariz. 1982).
· cites it 6× “From July 1974 to March 1976, it made no contribution to the unemployment compensation fund as required by A.R.S. § 23-601 et seq. Payments on the deed of trust ceased in April, 1976, and in September or October, 1976, Coronado Inns, Inc.”
Fleming v. Pima Cnty., 685 P.2d 1301 (Ariz. 1984).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 23-601. The Gullet Gin and Kauffman line of cases supply a rationale which best supports these state policies.”
Ferris v. Hawkins, 660 P.2d 1256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 23-601. The central purpose of our employment security act, establishing within Arizona a system of unemployment compensation, is to allow compensation for a limited period of time to those capable of working and available for work who are involuntarily unemployed…”
Munguia v. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 765 P.2d 559 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 23-601. In this case, we conclude from the record that the department neither liberally nor, indeed, fairly construed the definition of “an offer of new work” in A.”
Rice v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 901 P.2d 1242 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “…1,600 jobs at the New York headquarters, 1,600 elsewhere in the United States, and 1,600 in other countries. 2 . A.R.S. §§ 23-601 through 23-799.”
Pinto Valley Copper Corp. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 706 P.2d 1251 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “§ 23-733(A) which is the section of Arizona’s Employment Security Act, A.R.S. §§ 23-601 to 23-799 (Act) which requires a successor employer to make unemployment compensation fund contributions which reflect the experience rating of the predecessor employer.”
Maldonado v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 897 P.2d 1362 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Such an interpretation of the rule, we believe, frustrates the purpose of the statute. The purpose of the Employment Security Act is to lighten the burden of unemployment which "often falls with crushing force upon the unemployed worker and his family" and "limiting the serious…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.