Ark. Code Ann. » Title 11 Chapter 10
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-527 (2026)

Claims — Conclusiveness of determinations and decisions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. Except insofar as reconsideration of any determination is had under the provisions of § 11-10-522, any right, fact, or matter in issue, directly passed upon or necessarily involved in a determination or redetermination that has become final, or in a decision on appeal under §§ 11-10-523 — 11-10-530 that has become final, shall be conclusive for all the purposes of this chapter as between the Director of the Division of Workforce Services, the claimant, and all employing units who had notice of the determination, redetermination, or decision.
  2. Subject to appeal proceedings and judicial review as provided in §§ 11-10-520 — 11-10-532, any determination, redetermination, or decision as to rights to benefits shall be conclusive for all the purposes of this chapter and shall not be subject to collateral attack by any employing unit, irrespective of notice.

History. Acts 1941, No. 391, § 6; A.S.A. 1947, § 81-1107; Acts 2019, No. 910, § 257.

Amendments. The 2019 amendment substituted “Director of the Division of Workforce Services” for “Director of the Department of Workforce Services” in (a).

Case Notes

Cited: Andrews v. Victor Metal Prods. Corp., 241 Ark. 889, 411 S.W.2d 515 (1967); Garrett v. Cline, 257 Ark. 829, 520 S.W.2d 281 (1975); Harris v. Daniels, 263 Ark. 897, 567 S.W.2d 954 (1978); Bradshaw v. Daniels, 268 Ark. 716, 595 S.W.2d 254 (Ct. App. 1980); Hodnett v. Daniels, 271 Ark. 479, 609 S.W.2d 122 (1980); Duvall v. Daniels, 1 Ark. App. 50, 613 S.W.2d 116 (1981); Massey v. Barnes, 1 Ark. App. 329, 615 S.W.2d 398 (1981); Taylor v. Everett, 2 Ark. App. 181, 617 S.W.2d 864 (1981); Rogers v. Daniels, 2 Ark. App. 312, 621 S.W.2d 227 (1981); Terry v. Director of Labor, 3 Ark. App. 197, 623 S.W.2d 857 (1981); Hamby v. Everett, 4 Ark. App. 52, 627 S.W.2d 266 (1982); Osterhout v. Everett, 6 Ark. App. 216, 639 S.W.2d 539, 36 A.L.R.4th 392 (1982); Woodus v. Everett, 8 Ark. App. 111, 648 S.W.2d 528 (1983); Hirschy v. Everett, 8 Ark. App. 174, 649 S.W.2d 412 (1983); Linscott v. Director of Labor, 9 Ark. App. 103, 653 S.W.2d 150 (1983); Jacks v. Stiles, 19 Ark. App. 129, 717 S.W.2d 828 (1986).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2003–2016 · leading case: In re Leaks, 552 B.R. 741 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Leaks, 552 B.R. 741 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2016). · cites it 2× “(2) Once the overpayment becomes final pursuant to § 11-10-527, the amount owed shall accrue interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per an-num beginning thirty (30) days after the date of the first billing statement.”
Wall v. Dir., Arkansas Emp. Sec. Dep't, 128 S.W.3d 480 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003). “* * * (2) Any person held hable to repay an amount to the fund or to have the amount deducted from any future benefits payable to him or her shall not be hable to repay the amount nor shall recovery be made from any future benefits after four (4) years from the date the…”
Wall v. Dir., Ark. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 128 S.W.3d 480 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003). “* * * (2) Any person held liable to repay an amount to the fund or to have the amount deducted from any future benefits payable to him or her shall not be liable to repay the amount nor shall recovery be made from any future benefits after four (4) years from the date the…”
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.