Legal Opinion

Almada v. Administrator

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided January 2, 1951PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtInglis, J.

The question involved in this case is whether the plaintiffs, whose unemployment resulted from a labor dispute in which they were participants, come within the provision in our Unemployment Compensation Act which allows benefits if the unemployment is caused by a lockout.

The finding of the unemployment commissioners, which was added to by the Superior Court and in which no further corrections may be made, discloses the following facts: General Ice Cream Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the company, was engaged in the business of processing and distributing milk and milk products. It…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Bunny's Waffle Shop, Inc. v. California Employment CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Magner v. KinneyNebraska Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Adkins v. Indiana Employment Security DivisionIndiana Court of Appeals · 1946
  4. Barnes v. HallCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1940
  5. Johnson v. PrattSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1942

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

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. Lee-Norse Co. v. RutledgeWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Department of Public Utility ControlSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
  3. Lanyon v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation ActSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
  4. Guevara v. AdministratorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
  5. Bartlett v. AdministratorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1955

31 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