Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Brannaman v. International Service Union Ass'n

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided October 20, 1941No. 14,852Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Knous

Under the facts appearing of record, it is my conviction that during the period involved in this proceeding the soliciting agents of defendant in error at all times were “in employment” within the definition thereof contained in the Colorado Unemployment Act, because they had not been, nor would continue to be, free from the control and direction of defendant in error over the performance of their services, a prerequisite to exclusion from the act, by section 19 (g) (5) (a), chapter 167A Supplement 1935 C.S.A. thereof. Their inclusion under the act resulted from the element of control and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Industrial Commission v. Northwestern Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Colorado · 1939
  2. Equitable Life Insurance v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1939
  3. International Service Union Co. v. People Ex Rel. WettengelSupreme Court of Colorado · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API