TUBE REDUCING CORPORATION v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COM'N OF STATE


1 N.J. 177 (1948)

62 A.2d 473

TUBE REDUCING CORPORATION, PROSECUTOR-RESPONDENT, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND VITO J. CARLUCCI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Decided December 6, 1948.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mr. Abraham L. Friedman argued the cause for defendant-appellant (Mr. Samuel L. Rothbard and Mr. Emil Oxfeld, on the brief; Messrs. Rothbard, Harris & Oxfeld, attorneys).

Mr. Horace F. Banta argued the cause for prosecutor-respondent Tube Reducing Corporation (Messrs. Winne & Banta, attorneys).

Mr. Clarence F. McGovern argued the cause for defendant-respondent Board of Review.

Mr. Herman D. Ringle argued the cause for respondent Unemployment Compensation Commission (Mr. Charles A. Malloy on the brief).


The opinion of the court was delivered by HEHER, J.

We concur in the judgment of the former Supreme Court and, generally, in the reasoning of the deliverance of Mr. Justice Colie for the court.

The court found as a fact that there was "a stoppage of work * * * because of a labor dispute" at the respondent employer's plant, where Carlucci was employed, and that he "was `participating in * * * the labor dispute,'" and was therefore ineligible for benefits under...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases