DeMonaco v. Renton (1955)

Cf., De Monaco v. Renton, 18 N.J. 352, 357 (1955).

The Legislature may thus limit its action upon a decision to proceed cautiously, step by step, or because of practical exigencies, including administrative convenience and expense, (citations omitted) or because of “some substantial consideration of public policy or convenience or the service of the general welfare.” De Monaco v. Renton, 18 N.J. 352, 360 [ 113 A.2d 782 ] (1955).

Restaurant Ass’n v. Holderman, 24 N.J. 295 , 131 A.2d 773 (1957), the Court affirmed that, to prove a statute is special legislation, it is not enough, to demonstrate that the legislative objective might be more fully achieved by another, more expansive classification, for the Legislature may recognize degrees of harm and hit the evil where it is most felt, [citations omitted] The Legislature may thus limit its action upon a decision to proceed cautiously, step by step, or b…

The Supreme Court has stated that "[i]f the Legislature wishes to exclude a certain class from the coverage of the [workers' compensation] act it may, of course, do so, but only where the classification bears a reasonable and just relationship to the general object of the legislation or to some substantial consideration of public policy or convenience or the service of the general welfare." DeMonaco v. Renton, 18 N.J. 352, 360 (1955).

Restaurant Ass’n v. Holderman, 24 N.J. 295 (1957), we stated that it is not enough for a person alleging that a statute is special legislation to demonstrate that the legislative objective might be more fully achieved by another, more expansive classification, for the Legislature may recognize degrees of harm and hit the evil where it is most felt. [Citations omitted.] The Legislature may thus limit its action upon a decision to proceed cautiously, step by step, or because o…

Following enactment in this State of workers' compensation legislation, our courts applied the control test — used to identify the master-servant relationship — in order to determine whether a claimant is an "employee" as it was defined in the Workers' Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, L. 1911, c. 95, § 23, as amended. [2] See, e.g., DeMonaco v. Renton, 18 N.J. 352, 355 (1955); Piantanida v. Bennett, 17 N.J. 291, 294-295 (1955); Wilson, supra ; Errickson, supra ; Essbee A…

Thus it is not enough to demonstrate that the legislative objective might be more fully achieved by another, more expansive classification, for the Legislature may recognize degrees of harm and hit the evil where it is most felt. [Citations omitted.] The Legislature may thus limit its action upon a decision to proceed cautiously, step by step, or because of practical exigencies, including administrative convenience and expense, * * * or because of "some substantial considera…

DeMonaco v. Renton, 18 N.J. 352, 357 (1955) (newsboy), quoting from Hearst Publications v. United States, 70 F. Supp. 666 ( D.C.

The Legislature may thus limit its action upon a decision to proceed cautiously, step by step, or because of practical exigencies, including administrative convenience and expense, [citations] or because of "some substantial consideration of public policy or convenience or the service of the general welfare." DeMonaco v. Renton, 18 N.J. 352, 360 (1955).

Andryishyn v. Bayonne Block Co., 33 N.J. 120 (1960); DeMonaco v. Renton, 18 N.J. 352, 357 (1955).

See, e.g., Wilson v. Kelleher Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 12 N.J. 261, 264 (1953); DeMonaco v. Renton, 18 N.J. 352, 355 (1955); Cappadonna v. Passaic Motors, Inc. 136 N.J.L. 299, 300 ( Sup. Ct. 1947), affirmed per curiam 137 N.J.L. 661 ( E. & A. 1948).

If such infirmities would actually result from the application of sections 2 and 6, then those sections might ultimately fall while the remaining sections of the statute are nonetheless permitted to stand ( N.J.S.A. 1:1-10; Ahto v. Weaver, 39 N.J. 418 , 427 *410 (1963); Angermeier v. Borough of Sea Girt, 27 N.J. 298, 311 (1958); State by McLean v. Lanza, 27 N.J. 516, 527-528 (1958); DeMonaco v. Renton, 18 N.J. 352, 360 (1955)); however, we need not pursue the matter since we…

De Monaco v. Renton, 18 N.J. 352, 355 (1955); Piantanida v. Bennett, 17 N.J. 291 (1955); Wilson v. Kelleher Motor Freight Lines, Inc., supra .

DeMonaco v. Renton, 18 N.J. 352, 360 (1955); N.J.

Thus it is not enough to demonstrate that the legislative objective might be more fully achieved by another, more expansive classification, for the Legislature may recognize degrees of harm and hit the evil where it is most felt. * * * The Legislature may thus limit its action upon a decision to proceed cautiously, step by step, or because of practical exigencies, including administrative convenience and expense, * * * or because of `some substantial consideration of public …

De Monaco v. Renton, 18 N.J. 352, 355 (1955); Piantanida v. Bennett, 17 N.J. 291 (1955); Wilson v. Kelleher Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 12 N.J. 261 (1953); Cappadonna v. Passaic Motors, Inc., 136 N.J.L. 299, 300 ( Sup. Ct. 1947), affirmed per curiam 137 N.J.L. 661 ( E. & A. 1948).

DeMonaco v. Renton, 18 N.J. 352, 357 (1955) (newsboy), quoting from Hearst Publications v. United States, 70 F. Supp. 666 ( D.C.

Thus it is not enough to demonstrate that the legislative objective might be more fully achieved by another, more expansive classification, for the Legislature may recognize degrees of harm and hit the evil where it is most felt. [Citations omitted.] The Legislature may thus limit its action upon a decision to proceed cautiously, step by step, or because of practical exigencies, including administrative convenience and expense, * * * or because of `some substantial considera…

In a situation analogous to the one presently under consideration, the New Jersey Supreme Court stated: *126 "The determinative factor as to whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor for the purposes of workmen's compensation is control; the relationship of master and servant exists whenever the employer retains the right to determine not only what shall be done, but how it shall be done." De Monaco v. Renton, 18 N.J. 352, 355 (1955) In another similar, bu…

To determine whether such a relationship is present, the Restatement calls for the application of a “control test.” See id. § 220(1) (“A servant is a person employed to perform services in the affairs of another and who with respect to the physical conduct in the performance of the services is subject to the other’s control or right to control.”); see also Pollack v. Pino’s Formal Wear & Tailoring, 253 N.J.Super. 397 , 601 A.2d 1190, 1196 (App.Div.) (“[T]he relationship of m…

To determine whether such a relationship is present, the Restatement calls for the application of a "control test." See id. § 220(1) ("A servant is a person employed to perform services in the affairs of another and who with respect to the physical conduct in the performance of the services is subject to the other's control or right to control."); see also Pollack v. Pino's Formal Wear & Tailoring, 253 N.J.Super. 397 , 601 A.2d 1190, 1196 (App.Div.) ("[T]he relationship of m…

See De Monaco v. Renton, supra ( 18 N.J., at page 357 ); Hannigan v. Goldfarb, 53 N.J.

See, e.g., De Monaco v. Renton, 18 N.J. 352, 355-56 (1955) (concluding that "an independent contractor who had a franchise or exclusive right from the two newspaper companies to distribute" newspapers "exercised full control over all the newsboys, even to the extent of telling them precisely where they were to stand and sell the papers").