Almada v. Administrator
Supreme Court of Connecticut
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
- Bunny's Waffle Shop, Inc. v. California Employment CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Magner v. KinneyNebraska Supreme Court · 1942
- Adkins v. Indiana Employment Security DivisionIndiana Court of Appeals · 1946
- Barnes v. HallCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1940
- Johnson v. PrattSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1942
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Lee-Norse Co. v. RutledgeWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1982
- Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Department of Public Utility ControlSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Lanyon v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation ActSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
- Guevara v. AdministratorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
- Bartlett v. AdministratorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1955
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.