Court Opinion

ID: 9684836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:15:29.074608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:00.198429
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam
(on motion for rehearing). The appellant on his motion for rehearing has alerted us that language in the opinion that, “. . . we consider that it is appropriate in the circumstances of this case to impose upon the employer the burden of proving that the use of his wife’s services, in lieu of those of an employee, was not a temporary expedient,” could be misinterpreted as stating that the burden of proof was shifted to the employer. Such an interpretation was not intended by the court. The phrase properly interpreted means merely that the employer had the burden of going forward with the evidence. The burden of persuasion or proof did not shift.
Motion for rehearing denied without costs.