O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A. § 34-8-51 (2019)
Weekly benefit amount
✓ O.C.G.A. (archive.org 2024 item): print volumes of 2004-2024, per-volume vintage; older volumes partly replaced by 2019 Release 73 text; no 2025 or 2026 Acts
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official)
JustiaJustia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in this chapter, the term "weekly benefit amount" means the dollar amount, prior to any deductions, which an individual may be entitled to receive for one week of total unemployment.
History
(Code 1981, § 34-8-51, enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 139, § 1.)
- - - - - - - - - -
ARTICLE 3 ADMINISTRATION
Annotations
ARTICLE 3 ADMINISTRATION
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1983–1989 · leading case: Stuart-James Co. v. Tanner, 380 S.E.2d 257 (Ga. 1989).
Stuart-James Co. v. Tanner, 380 S.E.2d 257 (Ga. 1989). “2 See also OCGA § 34-8-51 (b)(3), exempting commissions paid to real estate salespersons by a broker from the statutory definition of “wages.”
Vocational Placement Servs., Inc. v. Caldwell, 308 S.E.2d 618 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). “The Department of Labor conducted a “field and wage investigation” and an Adjudicator ruled Adkins was a covered employee under the Employment Security Law.”
Tanner v. Brooks, 378 S.E.2d 405 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). “The administrative findings that appellee had paid Charlton “wages” within the meaning of OCGA § 34-8-51 (a) and that appellee was an “employer” within the meaning of OCGA § 34-8-38 are undisputed.”
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.