Legal Opinion

Ex Parte Pesnell

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 28, 1940No. 6 Div. 771PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GARDNER, Chief Justice.

The finding of fact by the Court of Appeals that petitioner’s unemployment was the result of a “labor dispute” in which he participated through his duly accredited agents is, as well^ftderstood and not here controverted, not¶ubject to review by this Court.

The conclusion of the Court of Appeals on the facts sufficiently appears in the opinion and need not be here repeated. Suffice it to say we think it clear enough these findings disclose a labor dispute unless, as seems to be argued by counsél for petitioner, there must also be made to appear a “strike or lockout”…

2Cited by32 opinions

  1. Unemployment Compensation Comm'n of Alaska v. AragonSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. Miners in General Group v. HixWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Nordling v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  4. Bunny's Waffle Shop, Inc. v. California Employment CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  5. Walter Bledsoe Coal Co. v. Review Board of Employment Security Division of Department of TreasuryIndiana Supreme Court · 1943

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API