Legal Opinion
Kirby of Norwich v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided January 31, 2018No. SC 19825, (SC 19826), (SC 19827)PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPalmer, J.
**41The issue that we must resolve in these appeals is whether certain individuals who have engaged in door-to-door sales of vacuums provided by the plaintiff, Kirby of Norwich, also known as GP Industries of Norwich, Inc., should be classified as independent contractors or, instead, as employees of the plaintiff for purposes of the Unemployment Compensation Act (act), General Statutes § 31-222 et seq. The named defendant, the Unemployment Compensation Act Administrator (administrator), *1183found that there was an employer-employee relationship between the plaintiff and those individuals, thereby…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Athol Daily News v. Board of Review of the Division of Employment & TrainingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2003
- Beaverdale Memorial Park, Inc. v. DanaherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
- Carpet Remnant Warehouse, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of LaborSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1991
- Rozran v. DurkinIllinois Supreme Court · 1942
- Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance v. ToneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Garcia v. Border Transp. Grp., LLC, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Vogue v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation ActConnecticut Appellate Court · 2021
- Garcia v. Border Transportation GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
- Garcia v. Border Transportation Group, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
- Green v. RXO Last Mile, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2022
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.