Court Opinion

ID: 9630000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:57:02.248849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:29.102967
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring).
I concur for the reason that the opinion of .Chief Justice McDonough, concurred in by niy brethren of the Court, is consistent with the law of this state as established in Leach v. Board- of Review of Industrial Commission, Utah, 260 P.2d 744. In view of the ruling of the majority, which I am by no means certain is wrong, it would serve no useful purpose -here to further labor my doubts, expressed in that case, as to the constitutionality of 'this statute, which were grounded upon the proposition that because of a factor extraneous to the contract employment; it discriminates between employees in their eligibility to receive unemployment compensation, and likely in their ability to procure employment; and the further question whether the classification employed could reasonably be considered as purposed toward the declared objective of relieving the burdens of unemployment. It is to be noted here that the facts do not show that the plaintiff is prejudiced by any inequity to employees created by the statute, if any such exists. Insofar as the classification to which we are here directing our attention is concerned, it may as well be that both groups of employees should be covered as that both should be excluded. The fact that such distinction is made, in and of itself, does not adversely affect Mr. Abrahamsen. I have deemed it advisable to record the foregoing, but nevertheless concur in the decision of the Court for the reason first stated above.