Kleck v. Wayland, Civil 4017
Decision Date | 06 May 1939 |
Docket Number | Civil 4017 |
Citation | 53 Ariz. 432,90 P.2d 179 |
Parties | 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 |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
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.
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 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 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:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Riley v. Cochise County
...every declaratory judgment action, there must be sufficient factual allegations to outline a justiciable controversy. Kleck v. Wayland, 53 Ariz. 432, 90 P.2d 179 (1939); Connolly v. Great Basin Insurance Company, 6 Ariz.App. 280, 431 P.2d 921 (1967); Lecky v. Staley, 6 Ariz.App. 556, 435 P.......
-
Podol v. Jacobs, 4837
... ... Morton v. Pacific Const. Co., 36 Ariz ... 97, 283 P. 281; Kleck v. Wayland, 53 Ariz. 432, 90 ... P.2d 179; Hammond v. A. J. Bayless ... similar to rule 43(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil ... Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, except that in ... ...
-
Maricopa Realty & Trust Co. v. VRD Farms, Inc.
...of any controversy requiring a determination by the court and hence fails to state a cause of action in this regard. Kleck v. Wayland, 53 Ariz. 432, 90 P.2d 179 (1939); Connolly v. Great Basin Ins. Co., 6 Ariz.App. 280, 431 P.2d 921 (1967). A reading of the complaint clearly demonstrates th......
-
Connolly v. Great Basin Ins. Co.
...judgment, sufficient facts must be stated in the complaint so as to establish that there is a justiciable controversy. Kleck v. Wayland, 53 Ariz. 432, 90 P.2d 179 (1939). In Kleck, our Supreme Court said, Inter '* * * we are satisfied the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to give th......