Legal Opinion
Transport Oil, Inc. v. Cummings
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided March 28, 1972No. 2PublishedCited by 44 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWilkie, J.
Two issues are raised on this appeal:
1. Was Cummings an employee within the meaning of sec. 108.02 (3), Stats.?
2. Was Cummings discharged for misconduct thereby-excluding him from compensation benefits ?
Was Cummings an employee of Transport?
A. Did the department apply the proper criteria? Sec. 108.02 (3), Stats., defines an “employee” for the purposes of unemployment compensation. That statute provides:
“(3) Employe, (a) ‘Employe’ means any individual who is or has been performing services for an employing unit, in an employment, whether or not he is paid directly by such employing unit;…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Phelps Dodge Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Boynton Cab Co. v. NeubeckWisconsin Supreme Court · 1941
- Jacob Siegel Co. v. Federal Trade CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
- Snyder v. Waukesha County Zoning Board of AdjustmentWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
- Parker v. St. Maries PlywoodIdaho Supreme Court · 1980
- Princess House, Inc. v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
- State Ex Rel. Harris v. Annuity & Pension BoardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.