Barton v. Industrial Com'n of State of Utah
Utah Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
DURHAM, Justice:
This is an appeal from an order of the Industrial Commission denying workers’ compensation benefits to the plaintiff because his employer, River Ranches, was an exempt “agricultural employer” under U.C.A., 1953, § 35-l-42(2)(b) (Supp.1986). The sole issue before us is whether the term “firm” as used in that statute includes a partnership.
*393Section 35-l-42(2)(b) exempts agricultural employers who “employ five or fewer persons other than immediate family members” from the requirement of maintaining workers’ compensation insurance. The term “employer” is defined in subsection…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Thomas-Bonner Co. v. Hooven, Owens & Rentschler Co.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1920
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. WebbSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
- Bufton v. HoseleyOregon Supreme Court · 1963
- Wood v. Universal Creditors Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
3Cited by1 opinion
- SF Phosphates Ltd. v. Auditing Division, Utah State Tax CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1998