Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kleck v. Wayland

Supreme Court of Arizona

May 6, 1939

JACK KLECK, Appellant,
v.
W. ROY WAYLAND, JOHN J. DURKIN and J. J. TAYLOR, as Members of and Constituting the UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION OF ARIZONA et al., Appellees

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. E. G. Frazier, Judge. Judgment affirmed.

Messrs. Elliott & Glenn, for Appellant.

Mr. George D. Locke, for Appellees.

OPINION

[53 Ariz. 433] ROSS, C.J.

This is an action for a declaratory judgment to determine the question whether plaintiff is required to make contributions to the unemployment compensation fund created by chapter 13, First Special Session, Twelfth Legislature, 1936, and amended by chapter 68, Laws of 1937. This statute was enacted to adjust and harmonize the state's policy of social security with that of the national government as expressed [53 Ariz. 434] in the Federal Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A., section 301 et seq. Under chapter 13, as amended, every employer of three or more individuals for wages for as much as twenty weeks a calendar year, except the employment of agricultural labor, domestic service in a private home, and some other employments not necessary to mention, is required to make contributions to an unemployment compensation fund, calculated upon a named percentage of the wages paid his employees. Sections 7 and 19, chap. 13, as amended by secs. 5 and 9, chap. 68. And the defendant, Unemployment Compensation Commission of

Page 180

Arizona, is constituted the agency to administer the law. Section 11, chap. 13.

The plaintiff contends that the service he is now, and has been, rendering is agricultural and not commercial in its nature and that he should not be required to contribute to the unemployment compensation fund. We quote the part of plaintiff's complaint giving his residence and describing the kind of labor he and his employees perform and do:

"I. That the plaintiff now is, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, a resident of the County of Maricopa, State of Arizona."

"III. That the plaintiff is now and for many years next last past continuously has been an employer of more than three employees who, under their respective contracts of employment with this plaintiff, from time to time perform labor for this plaintiff as follows:

"1. Clearing and grubbing lands preparatory to use of such lands for and only for the planting and growing of crops or orchards thereon.

"2. Levelling lands preparatory to the use of such lands for and only for the planting of and growing of crops or orchards thereon.

"3. Dragging lands preparatory to the use of such lands for and only for the planting and growing of crops or orchards thereon.

[53 Ariz. 435] "4. Floating lands preparatory to the use of such lands for and only for the planting and growing of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.