Legal Opinion
Electrolux Corporation v. Danaher
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided December 5, 1941PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.
This case' is concerned with the status of the sales representatives of the plaintiff under General Statutes, Cum. Sup. 1939, § 1334e (a) (1) of the Unemployment Compensation Act. The pertinent portion of this section reads as follows: “ ‘Employment,' . . . shall mean any service . . . performed under any express or implied contract of hire creating the relationship of master and servant.” Since the sales representatives were employed under a written contract, we look first to see whether it created the relationship of master and servant. The administrator found that it did, determined that…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- United States v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Norwalk Gaslight Co. v. Borough of NorwalkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
- Kelley's Dependents v. Hoosac Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1921
- Beaverdale Memorial Park, Inc. v. DanaherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
- Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance v. ToneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- McLaughlin v. Chicken Delight, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1973
- Kirby Co. of Bozeman, Inc. v. Employment Security DivisionMontana Supreme Court · 1980
- Bieluczyk v. Crown Petroleum CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1948
- Ross v. Post Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1943
- F.A.S. International, Inc. v. ReillySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.