Cassady, et al., v. Hiatt Lee

6 Citing cases

  1. Thomas Smith Farms, Inc. v. Alday

    182 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1966)   Cited 8 times

    On appeal to the Full Commission that body, finding the claimant to be engaged in non-agricultural work, reversed the order of the deputy and remanded the case to determine whether three or more employees of the employer were engaged in non-agricultural work. The Commission based this holding on the ruling in this Court in Cassady, Sheriff v. Hiatt Lee that: 1942, 150 Fla. 721, 8 So.2d 661. "It is the character of the labor performed by the employee that must determine its application [the exemption] rather than the character of the employer's business."

  2. Miranda v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co.

    229 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1970)   Cited 5 times
    In Miranda v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., 229 So.2d 232 (Fla. 1969), the Supreme Court said of the agricultural laborer exclusion in section 440.02, "any doubt as to the claimant's status in `grey' or borderline cases will be resolved in favor of compensation coverage and against exclusion."

    The character of his labor was administrative rather than agricultural. 150 Fla. 721, 8 So.2d 661 (1942). See, generally, Huebner v. Farmers Cooperative Ass'n of Holland, 167 N.W.2d 369 (Minn.

  3. Bean Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Comn

    14 N.W.2d 524 (Mich. 1944)   Cited 11 times
    In Minor Walton Bean Co. v. MichiganUnemployment Compensation Commission, 308 Mich. 636, 14 N.W.2d 524 (1944), decided under a counterpart of the regulation, the services were held to be covered employment.

    However, with State and trade regulations requiring processing in order to separate the beans into grades, it is now generally deemed more practical and advantageous to have this work done by commercial firms specializing in the business of processing and distributing farm commodities. In the case of Cassady v. Hiatt Lee, 150 Fla. 721 (8 South. [2d] 661), in considering whether or not plaintiff's employees were engaged in "agricultural labor," the court said: "It is the character of labor performed by the employee that must determine its application rather than the character of the employer's business."

  4. TISON v. HYER

    153 Fla. 769 (Fla. 1943)   Cited 1 times

    We have referred to a decision cited by the trial judge. In it, Cassady v. Hiatt Lee, 150 Fla. 721, 8 So.2d 661, the only question was the effect of "Florida Unemployment Compensation Law" on horticultural labor prior to 1 July 1941. Not only was the court considering an entirely different act, dealing with unemployment compensation, but the date we have given was the one on which Chapter 20,672, supra, became effective.

  5. State v. Christensen

    137 P.2d 512 (Wash. 1943)   Cited 23 times
    In Christensen, the primary question was whether milk truck drivers employed by dairy farmers fell within the agricultural exemption to the unemployment compensation act. That case held that the drivers were within the exemption.

    The court also stated that neither that case nor any expression in the case of Fosgate Co. v. United States, 125 F.2d 775, conflicts with the opinion in North Whittier Heights Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Board, 109 F.2d 76. In the case of Cassady v. Hiatt Lee, 150 Fla. 721, 8 So.2d 661, decided June 12, 1942, Hiatt Lee sought to enjoin the sheriff from collecting unemployment contributions for the years 1939 and 1940, under the Florida unemployment compensation law. The question involved was whether the term "agricultural labor," as used in the Florida law prior to June 1, 1941, included the services of the employees of appellee, who were engaged in performing services in connection with the cultivation of soil and production of crops on groves not owned or leased by their employer.

  6. Fla. Industrial Com. v. Growers Equipment Co.

    152 Fla. 595 (Fla. 1943)   Cited 36 times
    In Florida Industrial Commission v. Growers Equipment Co., 152 Fla. 595, 12 So.2d 889 (1943), and in Mississippi Employ. Sec. Com'n v. B.C. Rogers Sons, Inc., 193 So.2d 564 (Miss. 1967), cases relied upon by the court in Bertie's, the corporations there involved did not produce the agricultural product they processed. For that reason the court in each case held that the processing was not incidental to ordinary farming operations.

    Presented on this record for adjudication, flowing from the above statement of facts, is the question of whether or not the claimant was engaged in "agricultural labor" within the meaning of the foregoing provisions of law and thereby entitled to unemployment compensation, or was her employment agricultural labor and for this reason her employer was exempt from taxation? In the case of Cassady, Sheriff v. Hiatt Lee, 150 Fla. 721, 8 So.2d 661, we held that the several provisions of the Unemployment Compensation Law applied to all laborers not exempted. The public policy of the State of Florida toward unemployment was declared and made known by Section 1 of Chapter 18402, Acts of 1937, Laws of Florida.