Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-778 (2026)
Disqualification from benefits for fraud
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person who, within the twenty-four calendar months immediately preceding a week in which he files a valid claim for benefits, has made a false statement or representation of a material fact knowing it to be false, or knowingly failed to disclose a material fact with intent to obtain benefits under this chapter, shall be disqualified for the week for which the claim was filed and for not more than the fifty-one weeks immediately following such week as determined by the commission according to the circumstances in each case.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1964–2000 · leading case: Jardanowski v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 3 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
Jardanowski v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 3 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “Double Jeopardy ¶ 15 Petitioners contend that suspending their benefits after they were already convicted and sentenced for misconduct in obtaining benefits in the first place subjects them to double jeopardy.”
Miranda v. Beaman, 391 P.2d 555 (Ariz. 1964). “This disqualification was made pursuant to § 23-778 A.R.S. (1956), 1 and the Commission’s Regulation No.”
Norton v. Dep't of Emp., 500 P.2d 825 (Idaho 1972). “Such a scheme is contained in the following statutes from other jurisdictions: Ariz.Rev.Stat. §§ 23-778, 23-787; Ark.Stat.”
Richert v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 510 P.2d 410 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973). “Pursuant *101 to A.R.S. § 23-778, 1 appellant was disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits for the period from June 27, 1971 through September 25, 1971.”
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.