Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mantonya v. Bratlie

California Supreme Court

Decided November 23, 1948No. L. A. 20649Published

1DissentCarter, J.

I dissent.

As I understand the majority opinion it holds that the evidence shows, as a matter of law, that the leveling work done on defendant’s land was by an independent contractor, and, therefore, the sum paid to him by defendant was not a part of defendant’s payroll, and hence plaintiff cannot recover on the basis of the law applicable to a person subject to the workmen’s compensation laws who has failed to carry workmen’s compensation insurance. I do not agree with this holding.

It is clear that under the circumstances of this case, as pointed out by the majority opinion, the plaintiff is…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  3. Unemployment Compensation Comm'n of Alaska v. AragonSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  4. Estate of Bristol v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1947

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API