Taylor v. McSwain
Citation | 95 P.2d 415,54 Ariz. 295 |
Decision Date | 06 November 1939 |
Docket Number | Civil 4084 |
Parties | J. J. TAYLOR, W. ROY WAYLAND and JOHN J. DURKIN, as Members of and Constituting the Unemployment Compensation Commission of Arizona, E. W. MONTGOMERY, E. G. GRACEY and CLAUDE THOMAS, as Members of and Constituting the Advisory Committee on Personnel of the Unemployment Compensation Commission of Arizona, and SAMUEL T. ADAMS, as the Acting Supervsor of Merit Examinations of the Unemployment Compensation Commission of Arizona, Appellants, v. C. M. McSWAIN, H. K. McCOY, FLORA McCORMICK, MARK C. HOWE, CATHERINE EUBANKS, SAMUEL A. THROP, HARRY JENNINGS, ISABEL NOYES, BEULAH STEELE, SUSANNE HOLDEN, FRANCES LARISON, MARY BARRETT, EDITH DAIRSON, JANE LANE, VERA A. ZAPIEN, JOSEPHINE HIGDON, E. M. JOSLIN, ALENE MELIUS and J. B. SHAUGHNESSY, Appellees |
Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. M. T. Phelps, Judge. Judgment affirmed as modified.
Mr George D. Locke, for Appellants.
Mr. J Bolivar Sumter and Mr. Lee Garrett, for Appellees.
This is a class action by certain named plaintiffs, under section 3736, Revised Code of 1928, to secure a declaratory judgment as to the meaning and construction of a certain portion of subdivision (d), section 11, chapter 13, of the Session Laws of the First Special Session of the Twelfth Legislature, commonly known as the "Unemployment Compensation Law", and of certain regulations established by the Arizona Unemployment Compensation Commission under said subdivision (d), supra. The complaint also asks for certain affirmative relief.
The defendants in the case were the members of the Unemployment Compensation Commission, hereinafter called the commission; the members of the advisory committee on personnel of the commission, hereinafter called the committee; and the acting supervisor of merit examinations, hereinafter called the supervisor. The defendants demurred to the complaint specially on the grounds (a) that all persons who would be affected by the judgment had not been made parties plaintiff, and (b) that a declaratory judgment would not terminate the uncertainty nor controversy set up in the complaint; and also demurred generally on the ground that the matters alleged in the complaint did not constitute a cause of action against the defendants. The court overruled the general and special demurrers, and defendants electing to stand upon the demurrers, a declaratory judgment was rendered, interpreting and construing subdivision (d), supra, and the rules and regulations of the commission established thereunder, and granting certain affirmative relief to plaintiffs and all other persons of their class, whereupon this appeal was taken.
The facts necessary for an understanding of the legal issues raised may be stated as follows: The twelfth legislature, in its first special session, adopted chapter 13, providing for the payment of benefits to unemployed persons. The act is lengthy and sets up many provisions in regard to the collection of contributions from employers and employees, and their payment to unemployed persons. A commission of three members was created by the act to administer it. This commission was given certain powers in regard to administration, some of which were set forth in subdivision (d), supra, as follows:
Temporary appointments were made by the commission to fill various positions under it, and with reasonable promptness it established rules and regulations to provide for a permanent filling of these positions on a non-partisan merit basis. These rules and regulations were quite voluminous, and we quote only the portions which are material to the determination of this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Bonner v. Dist. Court of First Judicial Dist. In
...Once an appointment is made under it, removal can be accomplished only for cause and not upon personal considerations. Taylor v. McSwain, 54 Ariz. 295, 95 P.2d 415; In Donaldson v. Sisk, 57 Ariz. 318, 113 P.2d 860, 865, where the director of the unemployment compensation commission was invo......
-
State ex rel. Bonner v. District Court of First Judicial Dist. in and for Lewis and Clark County
...Once an appointment is made under it, removal can be accomplished only for cause and not upon personal considerations. Taylor v. McSwain, 54 Ariz. 295, 95 P.2d 415; Donaldson v. Sisk, 57 Ariz. 318, 113 P.2d 860, 865, where the director of the unemployment compensation commission was involve......
-
Phipps v. Boise Street Car Co.
...employed in industry. (Unemployment Compensation Law, sec. 2 (a), (b), and sec. 11, sec. 102 (a), (b) and sec. 601; Taylor v. McSwain, 54 Ariz. 295, 95 Pac (2d) 415; Riggen v. Perkins, 42 Idaho 391, 246 P. 962; State Insurance Fund v. Hunt, 52 Idaho 639, 17 P.2d 354.) Where there is no subs......
-
Salt Creek Freightways v. Wyoming Fair Employment Practices Commission
...of the commission must conform to the rules of the commission which are in effect at the time the action is taken. Taylor v. McSwain, 1939, 54 Ariz. 295, 95 P.2d 415." Here, the agency had rules which had the effect of law and which it failed to follow when it had a duty to do so. What is t......