Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 130 ME 181 - Murray's Case

Murray's Case’s Empirical Analysis

1931

Citation profile

109
cited by 109 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
January 2021
most recently cited

12 district · 82 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 109 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2021 · most notably United States v. Silk (1947), Mendel v. Fort Scott Hydraulic Cement Co. (1938)

12 district · 82 state decisions — followed in 17 states

2201931194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

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

  1. “(1) the existence of a contract for the performance by a person of a certain piece or kind of work at a fixed price; (2) independent nature of his business or his distinct calling; (3) his employment of assistants with the right to supervise their activities; (4) his obligation to furnish necessary tools, supplies, and materials; (5) his right to control the progress of the work except as to final results; (6) the time for which the workman is employed; (7) the method of payment, whether by time or by job; (8) whether the work is part of the regular business of the employer.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““No contract existed between petitioner and respondent for the performance by the former of a certain piece or kind of work at a stated price; all of the tools and appliances used on the job were furnished by the employer; petitioner was paid by the ton [barrel], not by the job; the work was a part of the regular business of the employer; petitioner was, at the time the accident occurred, subject to the employer’s orders and instructions; respondent had the right to discharge him at will without incurring liability for breach of contract. •In the light of these facts, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that the right to control any and every detail of the work rested absolutely with the employer.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “There was no agreement between [Murray] and [his employer] fixing any definite period of employment. He assumed no obligation either to unload any number of cars or to unload all of the cars which arrived between particular dates. He could cease work at any time and [the employer] could discharge him at any time, with or without cause. In neither case could an action for damages for breach of contract have been maintained.”
    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.