Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 72-1366 (2026)

Personal eligibility conditions.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Personal eligibility conditions.

The personal eligibility conditions of a benefit claimant are that:

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 203 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1953–2025 · leading case: Burnside v. Gate City Steel Corp., 739 P.2d 339 (Idaho 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Burnside v. Gate City Steel Corp., 739 P.2d 339 (Idaho 1987). · cites it 54× “If the commission's resolution of such questions of fact is supported by substantial competent evidence on the record it will not be overturned on appeal. The commission in the present case found that claimant's work-seeking efforts were not sufficient to qualify him to receive…”

Meyer v. Skyline Mobile Homes, 589 P.2d 89 (Idaho 1979). · cites it 23× “*758 The commission concluded that the work offered was suitable, “[c]onsidering the factors outlined in Idaho Code § 72-1366 (g).” However, absent from the commission’s suitability analysis is consideration of the distance between Meyer’s residence and the work Skyline offered.”

Ewins v. Allied Sec., 63 P.3d 469 (Idaho 2003). · cites it 25× “Idaho Code § 72-1366 provides, in relevant part: The personal eligibility conditions of a benefit claimant are that: (5) The claimant’s unemployment is not due to the fact that he left his employment voluntarily without good cause connected with his employment, or that he was…”

Wroble v. Bonners Ferry Ranger Station, 556 P.2d 859 (Idaho 1976). · cites it 24× “I.C. § 72-1366(e) provides: "The personal eligibility conditions of a benefit claimant [for unemployment benefits] are that * * * [his] unemployment is not due to the fact that he left his employment voluntarily without good cause, or that he was discharged from misconduct in…”

Uhl v. Ballard Med. Prods., Inc., 67 P.3d 1265 (Idaho 2003). · cites it 12× “Uhl unemployment insurance benefits pursuant to Idaho Code § 72-1366 (4)? D. Does Idaho Code § 72-1368 (4) require that Mr.”

Spruell v. Allied Meadows Corp., 787 P.2d 263 (Idaho 1990). · cites it 27× “I.C. § 72-1366 (Supp. 1988) provides in relevant part: The personal eligibility conditions of a benefit claimant are that (f) His unemployment is not due to the fact that he left his employment voluntarily without good cause, or that he was discharged for misconduct in…”

Guillard v. Dep't of Emp., 603 P.2d 981 (Idaho 1979). · cites it 24× “'" Idaho Code § 72-1366 . The facts as found and stated by Mr.”

Bringman v. New Albertsons, Inc., 334 P.3d 262 (Idaho 2014). · cites it 42× “2d 89 (1979), this Court defined materiality for purposes of Idaho Code section 72-1366. We explained: “A complete and unqualified disclosure can best be promoted by defining materiality to include any information that is relevant to the determination of a claimant’s right to…”

Jenkins v. Agri-Lines Corp., 602 P.2d 47 (Idaho 1979). · cites it 28× “Based on its findings of fact the Commission concluded that Jenkins' absence from work constituted misconduct within the meaning of I.C. § 72-1366(e), and concluded that claimant had not properly notified the *49 company of his absence.”

Ullrich v. Thorpe Elec., 712 P.2d 521 (Idaho 1985). · cites it 32× “" Subsection (f) of I.C. § 72-1366 was slightly amended in 1983, but that amendment is of no consequence to this case.”

Waite v. Moto One KTM, LLC, 491 P.3d 611 (Idaho 2021). · cites it 37× “) Since Moto One did not carry its burden of demonstrating Waite’s discharge was for employment-related misconduct, Waite argues he “did not receive benefits as a result of the misstatement, [and] Idaho Code § 72-1366 (12) does not mandate repayment of the benefits.”

Laundry v. Franciscan Health Care Ctr., 869 P.2d 1374 (Idaho 1994). · cites it 28× “Idaho Code § 72-1366 provides the terms upon which a claimant is eligible for an award of unemployment compensation.”

Show all 203 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(1) — 6 cases

Jimmy Christy Jr v. Grasmick Produce, 395 P.3d 819 (Idaho 2017).

Bringman v. New Albertsons, Inc., 334 P.3d 262 (Idaho 2014). “2d 89 (1979), this Court defined materiality for purposes of Idaho Code section 72-1366. We explained: “A complete and unqualified disclosure can best be promoted by defining materiality to include any information that is relevant to the determination of a claimant’s right to…”

McCammon v. Yellowstone Co., Inc., 607 P.2d 434 (Idaho 1980).

Tendoy Area Council v. State, 670 P.2d 1302 (Idaho 1983).

Andersen v. Brigham Young Univ., 620 P.2d 310 (Idaho 1980).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(12) — 19 cases

Waite v. Moto One KTM, LLC, 491 P.3d 611 (Idaho 2021). “) Since Moto One did not carry its burden of demonstrating Waite’s discharge was for employment-related misconduct, Waite argues he “did not receive benefits as a result of the misstatement, [and] Idaho Code § 72-1366 (12) does not mandate repayment of the benefits.”

Jimmy Christy Jr v. Grasmick Produce, 395 P.3d 819 (Idaho 2017).

Ehrlich v. Delray Maughan, M.D., P. L. L.C., 438 P.3d 777 (Idaho 2019).

Wittkopf v. Stewart's Firefighter Food Catering, Inc., 481 P.3d 751 (Idaho 2021).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(17)(a) — 1 case

Emery v. Boise State Univ., 32 P.3d 1112 (Idaho 2001).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(5) — 46 cases

Ewins v. Allied Sec., 63 P.3d 469 (Idaho 2003). “Idaho Code § 72-1366 provides, in relevant part: The personal eligibility conditions of a benefit claimant are that: (5) The claimant’s unemployment is not due to the fact that he left his employment voluntarily without good cause connected with his employment, or that he was…”

Mason v. Donnelly Club, 21 P.3d 903 (Idaho 2001).

Harris v. Elec. Wholesale, 105 P.3d 267 (Idaho 2004).

Stark v. Assisted Living Concepts, Inc., 272 P.3d 478 (Idaho 2012).

Moore v. Melaleuca, Inc., 43 P.3d 782 (Idaho 2002).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(6) — 4 cases

Lebow v. Com. Tire, Inc., 336 P.3d 786 (Idaho 2014).

Billy J. Bringman v. New Albertsons, Inc. (Idaho 2014).

Chance Lebow v. Com. Tire (Idaho 2014).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(7) — 3 cases

Smith v. State, 691 P.2d 1240 (Idaho 1984).

Tendoy Area Council v. State, 670 P.2d 1302 (Idaho 1983).

Gray v. Brasch & Miller Constr. Co., 624 P.2d 396 (Idaho 1981).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(Z) — 2 cases

Steffen v. Davison, Copple, Copple & Copple, 814 P.2d 29 (Idaho 1991).

Smith v. State, 691 P.2d 1240 (Idaho 1984).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(a)(1) — 1 case

Burnside v. Gate City Steel Corp., 739 P.2d 339 (Idaho 1987). “If the commission's resolution of such questions of fact is supported by substantial competent evidence on the record it will not be overturned on appeal. The commission in the present case found that claimant's work-seeking efforts were not sufficient to qualify him to receive…”

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(a)(l) — 1 case

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(c) — 4 cases

Ullrich v. Thorpe Elec., 712 P.2d 521 (Idaho 1985). “" Subsection (f) of I.C. § 72-1366 was slightly amended in 1983, but that amendment is of no consequence to this case.”

Meyer v. Skyline Mobile Homes, 589 P.2d 89 (Idaho 1979). “*758 The commission concluded that the work offered was suitable, “[c]onsidering the factors outlined in Idaho Code § 72-1366 (g).” However, absent from the commission’s suitability analysis is consideration of the distance between Meyer’s residence and the work Skyline offered.”

Carlson v. Ctr. of Resources for Indep. People, 712 P.2d 1161 (Idaho 1984).

Meyer v. Skyline Mobile Homes, 589 P.2d 89 (Idaho 1979).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(d) — 6 cases

Guillard v. Dep't of Emp., 603 P.2d 981 (Idaho 1979). “'" Idaho Code § 72-1366 . The facts as found and stated by Mr.”

Clay v. BMC West Truss Plant, 903 P.2d 90 (Idaho 1995).

Howard v. Dep't of Emp., 597 P.2d 37 (Idaho 1979).

Smith v. State, 691 P.2d 1240 (Idaho 1984).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(e) — 77 cases

Wroble v. Bonners Ferry Ranger Station, 556 P.2d 859 (Idaho 1976). “I.C. § 72-1366(e) provides: "The personal eligibility conditions of a benefit claimant [for unemployment benefits] are that * * * [his] unemployment is not due to the fact that he left his employment voluntarily without good cause, or that he was discharged from misconduct in…”

Jenkins v. Agri-Lines Corp., 602 P.2d 47 (Idaho 1979). “Based on its findings of fact the Commission concluded that Jenkins' absence from work constituted misconduct within the meaning of I.C. § 72-1366(e), and concluded that claimant had not properly notified the *49 company of his absence.”

Spruell v. Allied Meadows Corp., 787 P.2d 263 (Idaho 1990). “I.C. § 72-1366 (Supp. 1988) provides in relevant part: The personal eligibility conditions of a benefit claimant are that (f) His unemployment is not due to the fact that he left his employment voluntarily without good cause, or that he was discharged for misconduct in…”

Matthews v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 619 P.2d 1110 (Idaho 1980).

Beaty v. City of Idaho Falls, 719 P.2d 1151 (Idaho 1986).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(f) — 29 cases

Ullrich v. Thorpe Elec., 712 P.2d 521 (Idaho 1985). “" Subsection (f) of I.C. § 72-1366 was slightly amended in 1983, but that amendment is of no consequence to this case.”

Totorica v. W. Equip. Co., 401 P.2d 817 (Idaho 1965).

Ellis v. Nw. Fruit & Produce, 654 P.2d 914 (Idaho 1982).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(g) — 13 cases

Norton v. Dep't of Emp., 500 P.2d 825 (Idaho 1972).

Guillard v. Dep't of Emp., 603 P.2d 981 (Idaho 1979). “'" Idaho Code § 72-1366 . The facts as found and stated by Mr.”

Ullrich v. Thorpe Elec., 712 P.2d 521 (Idaho 1985). “" Subsection (f) of I.C. § 72-1366 was slightly amended in 1983, but that amendment is of no consequence to this case.”

Owen v. Newberg Cedar, 609 P.2d 144 (Idaho 1980).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(g)(2) — 4 cases

Guillard v. Dep't of Emp., 603 P.2d 981 (Idaho 1979). “'" Idaho Code § 72-1366 . The facts as found and stated by Mr.”

Meyer v. Skyline Mobile Homes, 589 P.2d 89 (Idaho 1979).

Crooks v. Inland 465 Ltd. P'ship, 921 P.2d 743 (Idaho 1996).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(g)(3) — 2 cases

Ullrich v. Thorpe Elec., 712 P.2d 521 (Idaho 1985). “" Subsection (f) of I.C. § 72-1366 was slightly amended in 1983, but that amendment is of no consequence to this case.”

Plante v. Ken's Elec., 702 P.2d 847 (Idaho 1985).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(g)(l) — 1 case

Peters v. Drake Mech., 701 P.2d 230 (Idaho 1985).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(gX2) — 1 case

Guillard v. Dep't of Emp., 603 P.2d 981 (Idaho 1979). “'" Idaho Code § 72-1366 . The facts as found and stated by Mr.”

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(h) — 2 cases

Czarlinsky v. Emp. Sec. Agency, 390 P.2d 822 (Idaho 1964).

Bentley v. Bunker Hill Co., 602 P.2d 69 (Idaho 1979).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(hX2) — 1 case

Bentley v. Bunker Hill Co., 602 P.2d 69 (Idaho 1979).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(i) — 5 cases

Smith v. State, 691 P.2d 1240 (Idaho 1984).

Hudson v. Hecla Mining Co., 387 P.2d 893 (Idaho 1963).

Wolfgram v. Emp. Sec. Agency, 272 P.2d 699 (Idaho 1954).

Norman v. Emp. Sec. Agency, 356 P.2d 913 (Idaho 1960).

Corwin v. Sunshine Mining Co., 525 P.2d 993 (Idaho 1974).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(i)(3) — 2 cases

Ullrich v. Thorpe Elec., 712 P.2d 521 (Idaho 1985). “" Subsection (f) of I.C. § 72-1366 was slightly amended in 1983, but that amendment is of no consequence to this case.”

Plante v. Ken's Elec., 702 P.2d 847 (Idaho 1985).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(j) — 6 cases

Luskin v. Dep't of Emp., 602 P.2d 947 (Idaho 1979).

Meyer v. Skyline Mobile Homes, 589 P.2d 89 (Idaho 1979).

Totorica v. W. Equip. Co., 401 P.2d 817 (Idaho 1965).

Gaehring v. Dep't of Emp., 594 P.2d 628 (Idaho 1979).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(k) — 1 case

Colvard v. Dep't of Emp., 574 P.2d 910 (Idaho 1978).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(n) — 2 cases

Tendoy Area Council v. State, 670 P.2d 1302 (Idaho 1983).

Blayney v. City of Boise, 715 P.2d 972 (Idaho 1986).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(o) — 1 case

Tendoy Area Council v. State, 670 P.2d 1302 (Idaho 1983).

— Idaho Code § 72-1366(p) — 1 case

Madsen v. Idaho Dep't of Transp., 730 P.2d 1024 (Idaho 1986).

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.