Hann v. Times-Dispatch Publishing Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

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

1. ““Whether the existing status is that of an employee or that of an independent contractor is governed, not by any express provision of the workmen’s compensation law, but by common law. Crowder v. Haymaker, 164 Va. 77, 79 , 178 S. E. 803 . No hard and fast rule can be laid down for ascertaining whether the status is one or the other. It must be determined from the facts of the particular case in the light of well settled principles. “In 14 R. C. L., pp. 67, 68, section 3, it is said, ‘The vital test in determining whether a person employed to do certain work is an independent contractor or a mere servant is the control over the work which is reserved by the employer. Stated as a general proposition, if the contractor is under the control of the employer, he is a servant; if not under such control, he is an independent contractor. * * * In this connection the ultimate question is not whether the employer actually exercises control over the doing of the work, but whether he has the right to control.’ “In two recent cases we have said, ‘The ordinary test is this: “Who has the power to control and direct the servants in the performance of their work?” ’ Crowder v. Haymaker, 164 Va. 77, 80 , 178 S. E. 803, 804 ; Epperson v. DeJarnette, 164 Va. 482, 486 , 180 S. E. 412 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brown v. Fox

2. ““In Press Publishing Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm., 190 Cal. 114 , 210 P. 820 , the hig'hest court of, California held that a route carrier of newspapers, employed under almost the identical circumstances, was an employee and not an independent contractor. What was there said ( 210 P. 820 ,'at page 823) is quite pertinent here: . ‘ As previously indicated, it is not the actual exercise of control, but the right of control — that is to say, the potential power of control — which is important in a determination of whether or not the status of an employee or independent contract [or] exists. * * # One of the means of ascertaining whether or not this right to control exists is the determination of whether or not, if instructions were given, they would have to be obeyed. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the Press Publishing Company had the power to hire and the power to discharge its carriers for unsatisfactory service, and in this regard Benefield was in no better position than the other carriers. This power of discharge made obligatory any instructions given, for it gave to the Press Publishing Company the power to require -obedience to those instructions and insured their being carried out. * * ))”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Texas Co. v. Zeigler