{
  "id": 6139160,
  "name": "Kirk J. RANKIN v. DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rankin v. Director, Arkansas Employment Security Department",
  "decision_date": "2005-01-12",
  "docket_number": "E 03-51",
  "first_page": "174",
  "last_page": "176",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "89 Ark. App. 174"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "200 S.W.3d 928"
    }
  ],
  "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 11-10-529",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "340 Ark. 65",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1365190
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/340/0065-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 Ark. App. 575",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6143306
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Rankin II"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "Rankin II"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/82/0575-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ark. App. 174",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6138305
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Rankin I"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "Rankin I"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/78/0174-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 247,
    "char_count": 3824,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.756,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17489764847294187
    },
    "sha256": "e3c1f974b5dee90126f638746332feaa792fe513bf297bb9fc05f80777ef3529",
    "simhash": "1:792b70a8fd3b6f04",
    "word_count": 633
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:09:44.662329+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Kirk J. RANKIN v. DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis case has been the subject of two previous opinions, Rankin v. Director, 78 Ark. App. 174, 79 S.W.3d 885, reh\u2019g denied, review denied (2002) (Rankin I); and Rankin v. Director, 82 Ark. App. 575, 120 S.W.3d 169 (2003) (Rankin II), in which we held that the appellant, Kirk J. Rankin, was entitled to receive unemployment benefits. Rankin now has filed a petition with this court asking that we direct the Arkansas Employment Security Department (ESD) to pay him those unemployment benefits. Because we lack jurisdiction to consider the petition, we must dismiss it.\nIn Rankin I, we reversed the Board of Review\u2019s denial of Rankin\u2019s claim for unemployment benefits, holding that the Board\u2019s finding that Rankin had voluntarily left his last work was not supported by substantial evidence. We remanded the case to the Board \u201cfor further proceedings consistent with [our] opinion.\u201d On remand, the Board, instead of directing the ESD to pay benefits to Rankin, conducted another evidentiary hearing and determined therefrom that Rankin was disqualified for benefits because of misconduct connected with the work.\nIn Rankin II we again reversed the Board, holding that its decision to deny benefits to Rankin on grounds of misconduct contravened the doctrine of the law of the case. We remanded with instructions to the Board to enter an order requiring the ESD to pay unemployment benefits to Rankin. We also directed the Board to certify the record of its decision to this court. As directed, the Board provided to this court a certified record of its decision, dated July 3, 2003, in which it directed the ESD \u201cto award the claimant unemployment insurance benefits to which he is entitled.\u201d\nIn his present petition, Rankin alleges that he has on numerous occasions requested ESD to pay him the benefits to which he is entitled, but that his requests have been to no avail. ESD has responded to Rankin\u2019s petition alleging that, as a result of its payment of benefits to Rankin in connection with a subsequent claim during the same benefit year as his initial claim, Rankin had already been paid the maximum benefits to which he is entitled under Ark.Code Ann. \u00a7 11-10-504, and that Rankin is not qualified to receive any additional benefits on account of unemployment during the same benefit year. Neither Rankin\u2019s petition nor ESD\u2019s response advise this court of the pendency or status of any proceedings before the ESD, the appeal tribunal, or the Board of Review relating to Rankin\u2019s efforts to collect the disputed benefits.\nThe appellate court loses jurisdiction to the trial court once the mandate is issued from the appellate court to the trial court, Barclay v. Farm Credit Servs., 340 Ark. 65, 8 S.W.3d 517 (2000); by analogy, the appellate court loses jurisdiction to the Board once the mandate is issued. This court\u2019s jurisdiction of Rankin II, supra, was lost on July 15, 2003, the date upon which our mandate was issued.\nIn accordance with Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-10-529 (Supp. 2003), the court of appeals\u2019 jurisdiction to review matters pertaining to an award or denial of unemployment benefits is limited to the review of decisions from the Board of Review. The documentation now before this court does not show that Rankin has appealed from the ESD\u2019s denial of benefits on account of his having been paid the maximum allowable benefits during a single benefit year. Rather, it appears that Rankin has simply filed his petition with this court, asking us to overturn ESD\u2019s decision. Because we lack jurisdiction to review decisions of the ESD, the petition must be dismissed.\nPetition dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Appellant, pro se.",
      "Phyllis Edwards, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Kirk J. RANKIN v. DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT\nE 03-51\n200 S.W.3d 928\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 12, 2005\nAppellant, pro se.\nPhyllis Edwards, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0174-01",
  "first_page_order": 200,
  "last_page_order": 202
}