106 F. Supp. 268 - Rambin v. Ewing’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently May 1977
3 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 409 (§ 209 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 410 (§ 210 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. · United States v. Silk · Bartels v. Birmingham · Dimmitt-Rickhoff-Bayer Real Estate Co. v. Finnegan · De-Raef Corporation v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have read the note of evidence of the hearing (159 pages); have examined all the numerous forms used in the business; and, have considered the contract between the parties, etc. Thus we have closely sensed the relation. Moreover, we have lived some years and have observed instances of the peculiar type of business involved. There is not here the relation of employer-employee. The plaintiff-solicitor is too free; there is no itemized control by the alleged employer. There is an ultimate object — the sale of the product on a commission basis— and the manner of attainment of that object, however, is totally left to the individual solicitor. There may be one good solicitor like the plaintiff here in a hundred that try; this is the proof that the application and the character of the solicitor are the main qualifications; she is absolutely the mistress of these characteristics for success in this business. [Emphasis supplied. 18 ]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * but such term does not include (1) any individual who, under the usual common-law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, has the status of an independent contractor or (2) any individual (except an officer of a corporation) who is not an employee under such common-law rules.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Substantial evidence means ‘enough [evidence] to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury.’ ” Cf. Rambin v. Ewing, D.C.W.D.La.1952, 106 F.Supp. 268, 272 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pirone v. Flemming
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.