Legal Opinion

McNEEL, INCORPORATED v. Redwine

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided May 4, 1954No. 35031PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFelton, C. J.

It makes no difference whether the relationship between the parties was one of employer-employee or the “dealers” were independent contractors. The test, and the quesiton here for decision, is whether the status between the parties falls within the meaning of employment as defined by the act. Young v. Bureau of Unemployment Comp., 63 Ga. App. 130, 137 (10 S. E. 2d 412). Code (Ann. Supp.) § 54-657 (h) defines employment subject to the act as meaning any service performed for wages or under any contract of hire, written or oral, express or implied. Code (Ann. Supp.) § 54-657 (n) defines “wages”…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Young v. Bureau of Unemployment CompensationCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940
  2. Babb & Nolan v. HuietCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1942
  3. Redwine v. WilkesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1951

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Sarah Coventry, Inc. v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1979
  2. Moore v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
  3. Redwine v. Refrigerated Transport Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1954
  4. Oxford v. Tom Huston Peanut Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1960
  5. Caldwell v. Sarah Coventry, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1978

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API