B. A. CASSADY, AS SHERIFF OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, A DULY AUTHORIZED STATE AGENCY
v.
HIATT & LEE, A CORPORATION
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a decree enjoining collection of unemployment contributions from a grove management company, holding that agricultural laborers employed to cultivate citrus groves are exempt from unemployment compensation requirements under the Florida Unemployment Compensation Law.
Agricultural labor, as exempted from the unemployment compensation law, includes services rendered in cultivating crops for others. The character of labor performed by the employee—not the character of the employer's business—determines whether work constitutes agricultural labor and is therefore exempted.
“It is the character of labor performed by the employee that must determine its application rather than the character of the employer's business.”
Establishes the controlling test for determining whether work qualifies as agricultural labor exempt from unemployment compensation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHiatt & Lee was engaged in grove management, contracting with grove owners to cultivate and maintain citrus groves. The company employed laborers to p…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Unemployment Compensation Law cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final decree enjoining the collection of unemployment contributions for the years 1939-40 under the Florida Unemployment Compensation Law.
The decree was entered on an agreed statement of facts substantially as follows: Appellee was engaged in a business which might be termed grove management; it contracted with grove owners to cultivate and maintain citrus groves; to fulfill its contracts it employed laborers.
The only question is whether: “the term ‘Agricultural Labor,’ as the same is used in the Florida *723Unemployment Compensation Law prior to July 1, 1941, include the services of the employees of the appellee, who are engaged in performing services in connection with the cultivation of soil and production of crops on groves not owned or leased by their employer?”
“Agricultural Labor” is expected from the law. Chapter 18402, General Laws 1937 and Chapter 19637, General Laws 1939.
It has recently been held that services: “rendered in cultivating crops of fruit for others were rendered on a farm in connection with the cultivation of the soil, and were under Art. 206(a) agricultural labor, although the owner of the crops did not directly hire the laborers, but dealt with the Company, which in turn put the laborers to work. The labor was -done in cultivating the soil, the literal etymological meaning of agriculture. The Company was entitled to recover back the taxes assessed with reference to these wages.” Chester C. Fosgate Co. v. United States, 125 F. 2d 775.
The Unemployment Compensation Law, supra, was enacted for the benefit of laborers by removing the hazard of involuntary unemployment. It applies to all laborers not exempted.
It is the character of labor performed by the employee that must determine its application rather than the character of the employer’s business. See also State ex rel. Bykle v. District Court of Watonwan County, et al., 140 Minn. 398, 168 N.W. 130, L.R.A. 1918 F, 198; Sylcord v. Horn, 179 Iowa 936, 162 N.W. 249.
The decree is affirmed.
*724BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, TERRELL, BUFORD, and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, J., agrees to conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Indus. Comm'n & Mirtie S. Taylor v. Growers Equip. Co., 152 Fla. 595 (Fla. 1943)…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. [*601] Hiatt & Lee, 150 Fla. 721, 8 So. (2nd) 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…
-
Miranda v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 229 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1969)…A. Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation, § 53.20 (1967). Note, 12 Tennessee Law Review 142 (1934). . 182 So. 2d 405 (Fla.1966). . Thomas Smith Farms, Inc. v. Alday, 182 So. 2d 405, 410, 411 (Fla.1966). . A. Larson, supra note 4, § 53.20. . 150 Fla. 721, 8 So. 2d 661 (1942). See, generally, Huebner v. Farmers Cooperative Ass’n of Holland, 167 N.W. 2d 369 (Minn.1969).…
-
Thomas Smith Farms, Inc. v. Alday, 182 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1966)…e words “and horticultural” from the 1941 Act, the legislature merely intended to embrace .all such activities under the head of “agricultural labor” * * *,’ thereby eliminating a mere matter of redundancy. In Cassady, Sheriff, v. Hiatt & Lee, 1942 [150 Fla. 721], 8 So. 2d 661, the Florida Supreme Court held that in interpreting the exemption of ‘agricultural labor’ un■der the 1939 Unemployment Compensation Law, which did not define the term, ‘It is the character of labor performed hy the employee that must…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Chester C. Fosgate Co. v. United States, 125 F.2d 775 (5th Cir. 1942)