Maskovsky v. High Brook Farm

Connecticut Superior Court

Maskovsky v. High Brook Farm

7 Conn. Super. Ct. 364, 7 Conn. Supp. 364, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 118

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 26, 1939

DocketFile 9749

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 364 (Maskovsky v. High Brook Farm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maskovsky v. High Brook Farm, 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 364, 7 Conn. Supp. 364, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 118 (Colo. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

ELLS, J.

Subsequent to his discharge for cause the claimant went into the milk business for himself and was endeavoring to build up a route. Upon his claim that he was not making a profit, and that he would turn his business over to his 17-year-old son if work could be found, the commissioner allowed benefits.

One who has engaged in self-employment is not totally unemployed. Yet by this ruling the claimant is to receive benefits *365 as for total unemployment. The test applied apparently was the success or failure of the self-employment venture. I think the correct test is the fact of self-employment, and not the ultimate outcome of it. This claimant is self-employed. The administrator contends that he is therefore not unemployed within the meaning of the act; that a man who enters upon a business venture of his own has removed himself from the labor market at least during the period of his business venture. I believe this to be a correct interpretation.

A second necessary factor is eligibility — availability. I do not believe this claimant was available within the meaning of the act.

The delay in decision is due to a misunderstanding which led the court to believe the case had been otherwise disposed of.

The appeal is sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ELLS, J.

Subsequent to his discharge for cause the claimant went into the milk business for himself and was endeavoring to build up a route. Upon his claim that he was not making a profit, and that he would turn his business over to his 17-year-old son if work could be found, the commissioner allowed benefits.

One who has engaged in self-employment is not totally unemployed. Yet by this ruling the claimant is to receive benefits *365 as for total unemployment. The test applied apparently was the success or failure of the self-employment venture. I think the correct test is the fact of self-employment, and not the ultimate outcome of it. This claimant is self-employed. The administrator contends that he is therefore not unemployed within the meaning of the act; that a man who enters upon a business venture of his own has removed himself from the labor market at least during the period of his business venture. I believe this to be a correct interpretation.

A second necessary factor is eligibility — availability. I do not believe this claimant was available within the meaning of the act.

The delay in decision is due to a misunderstanding which led the court to believe the case had been otherwise disposed of.

The appeal is sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Conn. Super. Ct. 364, 7 Conn. Supp. 364, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maskovsky-v-high-brook-farm-connsuperct-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack