Torres-Lopez v. May’s Empirical Analysis
111 F.3d 633 · 1997
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 11 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably United States of America v. Pablo Rivera-Sanchez (2000), Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Company Inc. (2003)
30 federal appellate · 11 district · 4 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
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb · White v. United States · United States v. Rosenwasser · Owen v. Owen
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) The nature and degree of control of the workers; (B) The degree of supervision, direct or indirect, of the work; (C) The power to determine the pay rates of the methods of payment of the workers; (D) The right, directly or indirectly, to hire, fire, or modify the employment conditions of the workers; and (E) Preparation of payroll and the payment of wages.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the work was a “specialty job on the production line;” (2) whether responsibility under the contracts between a labor contractor and an employer pass from one labor contractor to another without “material changes;” (3) whether the “premises and equipment” of the employer are used for the work; (4) whether the employees had a “business organization that could or did shift as a unit from one [worksite] to another;” (5) whether the work was “piecework” and not work that required “initiative, judgment or foresight;” (6) whether the employee had an “opportunity for profit or loss depending upon [the alleged employee’s] managerial skill;” (7) whether there was “permanence [in] the working relationship;” and (8) whether “the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged employer’s business.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) ... there is an arrangement between the employers to share the employee’s services ...; or (2) ... one employer is acting directly or indirectly in the interest of the other employer (or employers) in relation to the employee; or (3) ... the employers are not completely disassociated with respect to the employment of a particular employee and may be deemed to share control of the employee, directly or indirectly, by reason of the fact that one employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.