Legal Opinion
Moonlight Rose Co. v. South Dakota Unemployment Insurance Division
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided August 6, 2003No. NonePublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ZINTER, Justice.
[¶ 1.] Moonlight Rose Company (Moonlight) appeals from a circuit court decision affirming a decision of the Department of Labor. Both concluded that Moonlight’s retail rose sellers were employees, rather than independent contractors. Therefore, Moonlight was required to make contributions to the unemployment insurance compensation fund. Wé affirm.
FACTS
[¶ 2.] Moonlight entered into written agreements with Dan Long, Lana Dyks-horn, Wendy Albers and Renee Hagedorn (sellers). The agreements required Moonlight to provide roses, flower tubes, unir forms and sales materials to the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sopko v. C & R Transfer Co., Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
- Egemo v. FloresSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1991
- In Re the Appeal of Hendrickson's Health Care ServiceSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
- South Dakota Department of Labor v. Tri State Insulation Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1982
- Davis v. FrizzellSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1993
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Tak Communications v. South Dakota Unemployment Insurance DivisionSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2007
- Hill City Education Ass'n v. Hill City School District 51-2South Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
- Black Hills Adventure Lodging, LLC v. Dlr, Reemployment Assistance DivisionSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2025
- Higgins v. Upshaw Consulting Services, LLCDistrict Court, D. South Dakota · 2020