{
  "id": 1709227,
  "name": "Linda ARMSTRONG v. Charles L. DANIELS, Director of Labor",
  "name_abbreviation": "Armstrong v. Daniels",
  "decision_date": "1980-09-17",
  "docket_number": "E 80-61",
  "first_page": "303",
  "last_page": "304",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "270 Ark. 303"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "603 S.W.2d 481"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "269 Ark. 712",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1712544
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/269/0712-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 139,
    "char_count": 1506,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.738,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.66217029417753e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5286346810180825
    },
    "sha256": "7afc6e6c464aeec46d1639e808a442ae08f2015bd0ebd162dd32ee4ef96cbf2b",
    "simhash": "1:38978d5e65bd89b8",
    "word_count": 245
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:39.197564+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Linda ARMSTRONG v. Charles L. DANIELS, Director of Labor"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "David Newbern, Judge.\nIn this employment security benefits case, the appellant contends she quit her job because reimbursement for her gasoline expenses did not increase proportionately with the increase with the cost of gasoline. She contends this was \u201cgood cause connected with the work\u201d and thus she should not be disqualified from receiving benefits. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1106(a) (Supp. 1979). We affirm the board of review determination that this was not \u201cgood cause connected with the work.\u201d\nThe appellant contends that her employer, the Arkansas Department of Labor, had increased the territory she was required to cover in her work as a labor investigator, and that it was costing her too much to drive her own vehicle. While we will consider allegations of substantial decrease in wages as good cause for voluntary departure from employment, we will not say that complaints based primarily upon economic conditions beyond the control of the employer fit the statutory exemption for disqualification. Broyles v. Charles L. Daiels, et al., 269 Ark. 712, 600 S.W. 2d 426 (Ark. App. 1980). Apparently this employee takes no exception to the increase in her territory but for the coinciding increase in the price of gasoline. Thus, the primary reason for her voluntarily quitting her job was beyond the control of her employer.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "David Newbern, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No briefs filed."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Linda ARMSTRONG v. Charles L. DANIELS, Director of Labor\nE 80-61\n603 S.W. 2d 481\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 17, 1980\nNo briefs filed."
  },
  "file_name": "0303-01",
  "first_page_order": 331,
  "last_page_order": 332
}