Texas Co. v. Higgins’s Empirical Analysis
118 F.2d 636 · 1941
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1977 · most notably United States v. Silk (1947), Radio City Music Hall Corp. v. United States (1943)
25 federal appellate · 6 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 801 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Texas Co. v. Wheeless · Barnes v. Indian Refining Co. · Donovan v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana · Indian Refining Co. v. Dallman · Arkansas Fuel Oil Company v. Scaletta
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Art. 3. Who are employees. — Every individual is an employee within the meaning of Title VIII of the Act if he performs services in an employment as defined in section 811(b) (see article 2). “However, the relationship between the person for whom such services are performed and the individual who performs such services must as to those services be the legal relationship of employer and employee. Generally such relationship exists when the person for whom services are performed has the right to control and direct the individual who performs the services, not only as to the result to be accomplished by the work but also as to the details and means by which that result is accomplished. That is, an employee is subject to the will and control of the employer not only as to what shall be done but how it shall be done. In this connection, it is not necessary that the employer actually direct or control the manner in which the services are performed; it is sufficient if he has the right to do so. The right to discharge is also an important factor indicating that the person possessing that right is an employer. Other factors characteristic of an employer, but not necessarily present in every case, are the furnishing of tools and the furnishing of a place to work, to the individual who performs the services. In general, if an individual is subject to the control or direction of another merely as to the result to be accomplished by the work and not as to the means and methods for accom”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"This Manual * * * is intended to serve as a guide to more successful and efficient bulk plant operation. * * * The suggestions contained herein are the result of many years of experience. * * * They are offered to consignees in the spirit of helpfulness and with the sincere desire that the greatest benefits may be secured by all.” 118 F.2d at 637 .”
1 later decision 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.