Carpet Mill & Lighthouse v. Employment Division
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.
Petitioner appeals from a referee’s decision ruling that 14 persons who installed carpet and other products for petitioner were employes, rather than independent contractors, and that petitioner was therefore liable for unemployment compensation tax payments for the period in question, April 1, 1978, through June 30, 1979. We remand for further proceedings.
The distinction between an employe and independent contractor, for these purposes, is expressed in ORS 657.040.
“Services performed by an individual for remuneration are deemed to be employment subject to this chapter unless and until it is…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Kirkpatrick v. PeetOregon Supreme Court · 1967
- Byrne Trucking, Inc. v. Employment DivisionOregon Supreme Court · 1978
- Pam's Carpet Service, Inc. v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
- Republic Development Co. v. Employment DivisionOregon Supreme Court · 1978
- Sharp v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ponderosa Inn, Inc. v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
- Harvey v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
- Pam's Carpet Service, Inc. v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982
- Ponderosa Inn, Inc. v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
- Carpet Remnant Warehouse, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of LaborSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1991
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.