Legal Opinion
Ertman v. Fusari
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided December 21, 1977No. Civ. N-74-94PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULINGS ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONVENE A THREE-JUDGE COURT AND ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
ZAMPANO, District Judge.
In this action, the plaintiff David Ertman 1 challenges the constitutionality of Conn.Gen.Stat. § 31-235(3), known as the “forty rule,” which requires as a condition for unemployment compensation that the claimant’s earnings in his base period reach “an amount at least equal to forty times his benefit rate for total unemployment.”
I
Plaintiff applied for unemployment compensation benefits as of January 6, 1974. His “base period” earnings, in accordance with Conn.Gen.Stat. §…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Dandridge v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Weinberger v. SalfiSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Martin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Martin v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- D. Jennings v. UCBRCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
- Estelle v. EysinkiLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2014
- Martin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.