Glidden Rural Electric Co-Operative v. Iowa Employment Security Commission
Supreme Court of Iowa
1DissentMulroney, J.
(dissenting) — I respectfully dissent. The conclusion of the majority is that construction of a primary line, construction of any extension of an existing primary line, or construction of secondary drop lines to customers is no part of the usual or ordinary business of an electric transmission company. With that conclusion I cannot agree and I venture the prediction that the majority opinion will be greeted with some amazement by electric transmission companies who now have employees doing such work.
The sole issue to be decided is whether line construction is a part of plaintiff’s usual…
2Cases cited47 opinions
- Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Waterbury Savings Bank v. DanaherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
- Unemployment Compensation Com. v. . Ins. Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Zelney v. MurphyIllinois Supreme Court · 1944
- California Employment Commission v. Butte County Rice Growers Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.