Legal Opinion
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Industrial Accident Commission & Smith
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 26, 1943No. Civ. No. 12258PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNourse, P. J.
Petitioner seeks to annul an award of the respondent commission in favor of respondent Smith upon the ground that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding that Smith was an employee.
There is no substantial conflict in the evidence. The sole question presented is whether it can be said as a matter of law that an attorney who is employed under a general retainer is not an employee despite the fact that certain of the services he renders are of a general business nature rather than strictly legal.
The respondent DeLancey C. Smith is a duly admitted attorney at law. He maintained a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Casselman v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1940
- Industrial Commission v. MoynihanSupreme Court of Colorado · 1934
- In Re SoaleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
- O. P. Skaggs Co. v. NixonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1935
- Coleng v. RamsdellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Merritt v. Reserve InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Lowell Lyons v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- Baron v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Worthington v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- State Ex Rel. Williams v. MusgraveIdaho Supreme Court · 1962
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.