Legal Opinion
Gillum v. Johnson
California Supreme Court
Decided November 25, 1936No. S. F. 15685PublishedCited by 71 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.
This is a proceeding in mandamus to compel the respondents, in so far as their official duties may be involved, to comply fully with the State Unemployment Reserves Act (Stats. 1935, p. 1226), and with the Federal Social Security Act (49 Stats, at Large, 620).
The petitioner is the proprietor of the Hotel Claremont in the county of Alameda. As such, he is the employer of eight or more persons in the state of California. In accordance with the state act he forwarded to the Unemployment Reserves Commission of. this state nine-tenths of one per cent of the wages paid to his employees, and…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- United States v. ButlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Knowlton v. MooreSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Edye v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- McCray v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by71 opinions
- Steward MacHine Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Friedman v. American Surety Co. of New YorkTexas Supreme Court · 1941
- Gaulden v. KirkSupreme Court of Florida · 1950
- Valdes v. CoryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- California Physicians' Service v. GarrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
66 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.