Legal Opinion
Snook v. International Harvester Company
Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)
Decided March 18, 1955PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CLAY, Commissioner.
The question presented is whether or not a certain group of employees of the International Harvester Company, who were “laid off” because of a strike at the Louisville plant (in which they did not directly participate), are entitled to unemployment compensation under the provisions of KRS Chapter 341. The Unemployment Insurance Commission decided against the employees, and this ruling was affirmed on appeal by the Franklin Circuit Court.
The' determination of the question requires the construction of the word “establishment” in KRS 341.360. Insofar as pertinent here that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Chrysler Corp. v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1941
- Nordling v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- Ford Motor Co. v. New Jersey Department of Labor & IndustrySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1950
- Spielmann v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
- Ford Motor Co. v. Kentucky Unemployment Compensation CommissionCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1951
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Giant Food, Inc. v. Department of Labor, Licensing & RegulationCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
- O'DELL v. Division of Employment SecuritySupreme Court of Missouri · 1964
- Adamski v. B.U.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1959
- Lafayette Football Boosters, Inc. v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2007
- Adamski v. B.U.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1959
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.