{
  "id": 6137636,
  "name": "Linda S. COCKRELL v. DIRECTOR, Arkansas Employment Security Department",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cockrell v. Director, Arkansas Employment Security Department",
  "decision_date": "1999-06-16",
  "docket_number": "E 99-68",
  "first_page": "132",
  "last_page": "134",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ark. App. 132"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "992 S.W.2d 181"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-10-525",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ark. App. 66",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6137467
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/52/0066-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 Ark. 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1756243
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/271/0131-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 307,
    "char_count": 4413,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.731,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5223457043248467
    },
    "sha256": "d9b38b4b43890b1b750a17ca9388538f20480d3de81974d9c6ce1407425817df",
    "simhash": "1:7f71a0b9478738c6",
    "word_count": 763
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:56:03.568570+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Linda S. COCKRELL v. DIRECTOR, Arkansas Employment Security Department"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nLinda S. Cockrell has asked this court to reconsider our denial of her motion for belated appeal of a decision denying her unemployment benefits. Her appeal from the Board of Review was required to have been filed with this court within twenty days, or no later than Thursday, March 18, 1999, but was not received by the Clerk until Monday, March 22, 1999. Mrs. Cockrell, who lives in Fort Smith, provided a copy of a postmarked envelope proving that she mailed her appeal from there on the twentieth day.\nIn her motion, she expresses the belief that she has been treated unfairly and that we have denied her appeal because we don\u2019t want to \u201cfool with it.\u201d With respect to the members of this court, nothing could be further from the truth.\nThis court has no authority to extend the deadline for filing a petition for review from a decision by the Board of Review, see Wooten v. Daniels, 271 Ark. 131, 607 S.W.2d 96 (1980), or indeed for any appeal. The timely filing of a notice of appeal is necessary for this court to have jurisdiction of a case on appeal. EARP v. Benton Fire Dep\u2019t., 52 Ark. App. 66, 914 S.W.2d 781 (1996). This court is often required to review petitions for belated appeal from people who, like Ms. Cockrell, have been denied unemployment benefits. Many of these appeals have been filed on the twenty-first day, or only one day late. The claimants are seldom represented by an attorney. We take no pleasure in closing our door to these claimants, and we often do so with great reluctance and only after much discussion. Indeed, we grant these motions if at all possible. For example, where the claimant has shown by a postmarked envelope that the Board of Review\u2019s decision was mailed later than the date appearing on the decision, we have allowed the appeal to go forward if timely filed within twenty days of the actual mailing.\nMany of these requests for belated appeal are handwritten and tell of the dire financial condition of the unemployed workers and their families. Without regard to the merits of these appeals, it is not a pleasant duty for us to deny these claimants their day in court.\nWe agree with Ms. Cockrell, however, that the appeals process can and should be made fairer to these litigants in one respect; the notice that is sent to them by the Board of Review should be revised to clarify what is meant by the term \u201cfiled.\u201d Appeals from both the agency determination and from the appeal tribunal to the Board of Review are also required to be \u201cfiled\u201d within twenty days. However, they are considered timely, when mailed, if postmarked on the twentieth day. Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-10-524 (Supp. 1997) provides that such appeals, \u201cIf mailed, . . . shall be considered to have been filed as of the date of the postmark on the envelope.\u201d Appeals to the Board of Review are governed by Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-10-525, which refers back to section 524 on the matter of timeliness.\nHowever, this rule changes with the final appeal to this court; we cannot accept appeals that are postmarked timely but not received within twenty days. In this regard, the notice to claimants accompanying the Board of Review\u2019s decision states in pertinent part, \u201cThe decision will become final unless, WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DAY THE DECISION WAS MAILED, a petition for review ... is filed with the Arkansas Court of Appeals.\u201d Although the word \u201cfiled\u201d is a term whose meaning would clearly be understood by an attorney, there is nothing in the Board\u2019s notice to put the claimants, unrepresented by counsel, on notice that the rules for \u201cfiling\u201d have suddenly changed, and that the postmark on their appeal no longer has any legal significance.\nWe suggest that the following language be added, also in bold type, to the notice currently used by the Board of Review:\nYOUR PETITION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED UNLESS IT IS ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS ON OR BEFORE THE 20\u2122 DAY AFTER THE MAILING DATE SHOWN ON THE LAST PAGE OF THE ENCLOSED DECISION.\nIf this suggestion were taken, perhaps this court would have fewer occasions to deny these belated appeals, and we would feel a little less discomfort when we are required to do so.\nMotion denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Appellant, pro se.",
      "Phylliss Edwards, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Linda S. COCKRELL v. DIRECTOR, Arkansas Employment Security Department\nE 99-68\n992 S.W.2d 181\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 16, 1999\nAppellant, pro se.\nPhylliss Edwards, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0132-01",
  "first_page_order": 162,
  "last_page_order": 164
}