Legal Opinion
Matcovich v. Anglim
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 30, 1943No. 10306PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HANEY, Circuit Judge.
The sole question involved in this appeal is: was appellant the employer of the girl dancers described herein so as to be liable for taxes levied by the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq.?
The City of Sacramento, California, has an ordinance which provides in part:
“The term ‘taxi dance hall’ for the purpose of this ordinance shall include any place where women dancing partners are employed directly or indirectly by the licensee * * *.
“Every taxi dance hall shall have in constant attendance at all times when open, a special peace officer who shall be approved…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Lucas v. EarlSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Burnet v. HarmelSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Griffiths v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Buckstaff Bath House Co. v. McKinleySupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Anglim v. Empire Star Mines Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1942
3Cited by28 opinions
- Gaulden v. Southern Pac. Co.District Court, N.D. California · 1948
- Birmingham v. BartelsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1947
- Anna Barrera v. Hubert WheelerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1973
- Hearst Publications, Inc. v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1946
- Marlar, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.