Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 72-1301 (2026)

Short title. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Short title. 

This act shall be known as the "Employment Security Law."

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases, 1955–2009 · leading case: Matthews v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 619 P.2d 1110 (Idaho 1980).
Matthews v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 619 P.2d 1110 (Idaho 1980). · cites it 4× “Chapter 13 of Title 72 of the Idaho Code comprises the "Employment Security Law," I.C. § 72-1301, which, among other things, defines eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits.”
Spruell v. Allied Meadows Corp., 787 P.2d 263 (Idaho 1990). · cites it 4× “Chapter 13 of Title 72 of the Idaho Code comprises the `Employment Security Law,' I.C. § 72-1301, which, among other things, defines eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits.”
Roll v. City of Middleton, 665 P.2d 721 (Idaho 1983). · cites it 4× “Not only is the evidence to the contrary, our review of the Employment Security Law, I.C. § 72-1301 et seq., and Idaho case law discloses no requirement that there be a precipitating act of misconduct immediately prior to the termination of employment before a claimant may be…”
Meyer v. Skyline Mobile Homes, 589 P.2d 89 (Idaho 1979). · cites it 2× “I.C. §§ 72-1301 to -1380. Claimant appellant Robert L.”
Avery v. B & B Rental Toilets, 549 P.2d 270 (Idaho 1976). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 72-1301 et seq. Findings of fact made by the Industrial Commission in unemployment cases will be sustained on appeal if supported by substantial and competent evidence.”
Lang v. Ustick Dental Off., P.A., 817 P.2d 1069 (Idaho 1991). · cites it 4× “Chapter 13 of Title 72 of the Idaho Code comprises the `Employment Security Law,' I.C. § 72-1301, which, among other things, defines eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits.”
Comegys v. Idaho Air Nat'l Guard, 663 P.2d 648 (Idaho 1983). · cites it 4× “Misconduct in the eyes of an employer may not be the kind of misconduct outlined in the Employment Security Law, Idaho Code, Section 72-1301, et seq., the absence of which is a condition of eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits.”
Nampa Christian Schs. Found., Inc. v. State, 719 P.2d 1178 (Idaho 1986). · cites it 2× “Because these qualifying conditions exist here, we affirm the Industrial Commission’s decision that Nam-pa Christian is not required to pay unemployment taxes under I.C. § 72-1301 et seq. We do so, however, upon the basis of the exception found in § 72-1316A(g)(l)(ii) and not…”
Taylor v. Burley Care Ctr., 828 P.2d 821 (Idaho 1992). · cites it 4× “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, and for the compulsory setting aside of unemployment…”
Smith v. Idaho Dep't of Labor, 218 P.3d 1133 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 2× “*74 The Idaho Employment Security Law is codified at I.C. §§ 72-1301 to -1385. “The commission is authorized to hear and decide matters appealed to it in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.”
Kerr v. Dep't of Emp., 545 P.2d 473 (Idaho 1976). · cites it 2× “In this appeal we must consider the constitutionality of portions of the following provision of Idaho’s employment security law, I.C. § 72-1301 et seq.: “72-1312. COMPENSABLE WEEK.”
Bortz v. Payless Drug Store, 719 P.2d 1202 (Idaho 1986). · cites it 2× “Bortz had filed with the State Department of Employment (the Department) for unemployment benefits pursuant to I.C. § 72-1301 et seq. The claims examiner initially found that because Payless had discharged Bortz without proof of misconduct, Bortz was eligible for benefits.”
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.