Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 119 Ohio App. 3d 288 - Conway v. Calbert

119 Ohio App. 3d 288 - Conway v. Calbert’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
June 2013
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 2013

7 state decisions

40199720002010decided

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 Dresher v. Burt · Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. · Breard v. City of Alexandria La · Bostic v. Connor · 94 Ohio App. 3d 579 - Koos v. Central Ohio Cellular, Inc.

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Based on our review of the record, the material facts are not in dispute. Calbert set his own hours for delivery within the time frame set out by DCS. He furnished his own vehicle and used his family to help him complete his deliveries. Although provided a map of the delivery area, he was free to select the route and the order in which he delivered to the households in the delivery area. The contract was terminable at will with one week’s written notice required. Pay ment was on the basis of the number of items delivered, four cents for the first piece of material in each packet and one-half cent for each additional piece of material. Calbert was responsible for his own taxes and expenses and was not covered by workers’ compensation. The written agreement allowed the earners to subcontract their duties. The facts show that DCS did not exercise or retain the right to exercise any significant degree of control or direction over the manner and means of delivery. ' Through its route coordinators, DCS checked on the end result, whether the plastic bags with advertising were delivered to the residences within the time frame specified. Calbert controlled the method by which the results were obtained. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that Calbert worked as an independent contractor rather than as an employee of DCS.” Conway, supra, 119 Ohio App.3d at 293 , 695 N.E.2d at 274 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.