Cedarburg Fox Farms, Inc. v. Industrial Commission
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFeitz, J.
The basic question is whether under the provisions of the Unemployment Compensation Act, ch. 108, Stats., which were in effect in 1934 to 1939, plaintiff’s employees, engaged in its fox-farm operations, were exempted from the act by sec. 108.02 (e), Stats. 1935, which, in connection with defining “employment” and specifying coverage under the act, provides,—
“. . . except that for the purposes of this chapter an ‘employment’ shall not include: Employment as a farm laborer; . . .”
At the times in question plaintiff was engaged in extensive operations in the breeding’and raising of silver foxes…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Cook v. MasseyIdaho Supreme Court · 1923
- Davis v. Industrial CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1922
- Fleckles v. HilleIndiana Court of Appeals · 1925
- Lowe v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation BureauNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1936
- Forsythe v. Village of CooksvilleIllinois Supreme Court · 1934
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Tucker v. NewmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- Dost v. Pevely Dairy CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1954
- Maus v. BlossWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
- Collins v. MoyleIdaho Supreme Court · 1961
- Space v. DIV. OF EMPLOYMENT SECUR. ETC.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1960
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.