Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• discussing that the pertinent question under WARN is whether the employee has received the notice provided by law, not whether the employee-lost wages or benefits
• explaining that the Board has good cause to grant reconsideration to revisit a legal issue
• explaining “no good cause to grant rehearing where the requesting party did not act to protect its own interests by presenting crucial evidence at the initial hearing and asserted no reason for its failure to make the ‘new’ evidence available at that time”
• “WARN payments, although made ‘with respect to’ the claim weeks at issue, were not made in recognition of any services claimants performed for G-P either during those weeks or at any other time”
• making a distinction between unemployment benefits and other statutory payments
• making a distinction between unemployment benefits and other statutory payments

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).